Los Gatos City Council
January 13, 2026

ITEM NO. 1.

Town prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall add this condition to the general notes on the grading plan.

80. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS CHECKLIST: The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall complete, sign, stamp, and submit the Town’s Geologic Hazards Checklist for all new proposed development to demonstrate that potential hazards have been identified and that proposed structures, including grading cuts and fills, will be designed to resist potential earthquake effects. The applicant shall submit this form at the same time as the design level geological report.

81. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: After the issuance of any Grading or Encroachment permit and before the commencement of any on or off-site work, the Applicant shall request a pre-construction meeting with the PPW Inspector to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance, and other construction matters. At that meeting, the Applicant shall submit a letter acknowledging that:
a. They have read and understand these project Conditions of Approval; b. They will require that all project sub-contractors read and understand these project Conditions of Approval; and
c. They ensure a copy of these project Conditions of Approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.

82. STREET CUT RESTORATION: Where the Applicant makes pavement cuts on Los Gatos Boulevard for a utility trench, the trench shall be backfilled using the Town’s standard “T” trench detail, including Town-approved controlled density fill. The asphalt thickness of the T trench section shall be a minimum of 3-inches, meet Town standards, or shall match the existing pavement thickness, whichever is greater. Because the utility trenches are expected to extend across Los Gatos Boulevard to the furthermost northbound lane, the Applicant shall grind off the existing thermoplastic lane markings and apply a micro-surfacing coating along the entire length of Los Gatos Boulevard, from curb to curb, from the northern boundary of North 40 Phase I to the southern boundary of APN 424-070-064 as directed by the Town Engineer. The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the PPW Inspector prior to the day the paving is to take place. Restoration materials shall be approved by the Town Engineer prior to placement. All striping and pavement markings shall be replaced in-kind with thermoplastic upon completion of roadway surfacing. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by the Town Engineer within six months of the final utility cuts on Los Gatos Boulevard, or as directed by the Town Engineer.

83. FLOOR DRAINS: All floor drains shall be plumbed to connect to the sanitary sewer system only. Site design must facilitate drainage away from building floor drains.

84. GARBAGE/RECYCLE STORAGE AND SERVICE: The Applicant shall provide adequate area for the purposes of storing garbage, composting and recycling collection containers for scheduled servicing by the Town’s solid waste collection provider.

New food service buildings and/or multi-family residential complexes shall provide

ITEM NO. 1.
a covered or enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to be hydrologically isolated. Areas around trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures shall not discharge directly to the storm drain system. Any drains installed in or beneath dumpsters and compactors shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Any drains installed in or beneath tallow bin areas serving food service facilities shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system with a grease removal device prior to discharging. The Applicant shall contact the local permitting authority and/or West Valley Sanitation District for specific connection and discharge requirements. Per Town Code Section

29.10.09010, the collection containers shall not be placed in the right of way except during the period of time necessary to allow removal of the waste. brought to the service area on the day of service and returned to the storage enclosure by the property owner that same day. The containers are not to be in public view or in the public right-of-way prior to or beyond the scheduled service times. A letter from West Valley Collection and Recycling confirming serviceability and site accessibility shall be provided to the Town Engineer for approval prior to the approval of an occupancy permit.

85. SITE LANDSCAPING COORDINATION: The Applicant shall coordinate the overall site landscaping and, if proposed, the stormwater treatment area landscaping.

Stormwater treatment areas should be identified on the site first, and then site landscaping to make sure the correct plant material is identified for each area.

Some site landscaping plant material may not be suitable in stormwater treatment areas due to the nature of the facility. Sanitary sewer facilities cannot be aligned through stormwater treatment facilities.

86. OFF-HOURS MATERIAL DELIVERY: The Applicant shall coordinate with the future site operators of commercial usesso that all site delivery of materials and goods to non-residential portions of the project are delivered off-hours and on-site. This will allow the on-site customer parking for the development site to be utilized during business hours and not be impacted by the staging of delivery vehicles. The Applicant shall provide a written plan, to ensure that this condition is satisfied, prior to occupancy of the first site building. The plan shall be to the approval of the Town Engineer.

87. MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING LOADING ZONE – The Applicant shall provide a Town compliant loading zone for the mixed-use building (building E1) that is 10-feet wide and 30-feet long, or as determined by the Town Engineer. Construction shall be completed prior to any occupancy permit is issued for the Multi-Family Building (building E1).

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL

MAP OR PARCEL MAP, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A CONDITION, AT THAT TIME.

88. DEDICATIONS: The Applicant shall dedicate in Fee title to an eight (8) foot wide strip of land along the project frontage of Burton Road for roadway purposes. The

ITEM NO. 1.

Applicant shall also dedicate a 14.5-feet public access easement along Los Gatos Boulevard and public utility easement as shown on the approved plans and as approved by the Town Engineer.

89. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the project to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform any work on neighboring private property herein proposed. Proof of agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit.

90. SUBDIVISION (FINAL) MAP: The Applicant shall have a subdivision map, prepared by a person authorized to practice land surveying in California, delineating all parcels created or deleted and all changes in lot lines in conformance with the Los Gatos Town Code and the Subdivision Map Act.

Existing buildings shall be demolished prior to the recordation of the map if they conflict with any newly created lot line. The Town Council must approve all Final Maps. The Town Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days after the Final Map, Public Improvement Plans, Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement, Landscape Maintenance Agreement, and Subdivision Improvement Agreement are approved by the Town Engineer. The Final Subdivision Map shall be approved by PPW and recorded by the County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of the first building permit. In lieu of the Town Clerk’s Office coordinating the recordation of the Final Map(s) with the County, the Applicant may submit a map guarantee by the Applicant’s title company for the release of the signed Final Map to the title company for recordation. Prior to the Town’s release of the Final Map, the Town Engineer may require the Applicant to submit to the Town an electronic copy of the map in the AutoCAD Version being used by the Town at the time of recordation. It is the Applicant's responsibility to check with their title company and the County Recorder’s Office to determine the time necessary to have the map recorded after Town approval.

91. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter as a contractor into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) with the Town per Town Code Section 24.40.020, Gov. Code Section 66462(a), and shall arrange to provide Payment and Performance bonds each for 100 percent of the cost of public infrastructure improvements to be constructed in the public right-of-way and grading work performed onsite. These improvements shall include, but are not limited to, roadway construction, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm lines, street lights, signal equipment, and earthwork. Town Standard insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement. The agreement shall be approved by the Town Council with the project’s first Final Map.

92. MONUMENTS: The Applicant shall arrange for the engineer to have all monuments set per the recorded map. A certificate letter by the Surveyor or Engineer stating the monuments are set per plan shall be provided to the Town Engineer prior to occupancy.

ITEM NO. 1.

93. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS (CC&R): The Applicant shall prepare and submit draft project Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) for the project, except for the affordable housing (Lot 19). The CC&Rs shall be submitted with the project map for review of the Town Engineer, the Town Attorney, and the Planning Manager. The CC&Rs shall include relevant project Conditions of Approval. Such CC&R terms related to the project’s Conditions of Approval and/or any obligations directly involving the Town shall be subject to approval by the Town Engineer, the Town Attorney, and the Planning Manager and shall include language that restricts the Homeowner’s Association from making changes to those provisions of the CC&Rs related to the project’s Conditions of Approval and/or any obligations directly involving the Town without first obtaining approval from the Town. References to the Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement obligations shall be incorporated.

The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by Town staff prior to the Town Council approval of the Final map.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL

INSPECTION, OR ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHIN A PHASE OF THE

FINAL MAP, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A CONDITION, AT THAT TIME.

94. RECORD DRAWINGS: The Applicant shall submit a scanned PDF set of stamped record drawings and construction specifications for all off-site improvements related to the phase of the final map to the Department of Parks and Public Works.

All underground facilities shall be shown on the record drawings as constructed in the field. The Applicant shall also provide the Town with an electronic copy of the record drawings in the AutoCAD Version being used by the Town at the time of completion of the work. The Applicant shall also submit an AutoCAD drawing file of all consultants composite basemap linework showing all public improvements and utility layouts. This condition shall be met prior to the release of utilities, final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

95. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed during construction. Improvements such as, but not limited to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, streetlights, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired or replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the PPW Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the PPW Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall request a walk-through with the PPW Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.

ITEM NO. 1.

96. STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall execute and record a Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement to ensure perpetual maintenance of the regulated project’s treatment facilities. The agreement shall outline the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for the permanent storm water treatment facilities. The Town-Standard Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by PPW upon request. The agreement shall be executed prior to occupancy of the first building and include the following:
a. The property owner shall operate and maintain all on-site stormwater treatment facilities in good condition and promptly repair/replace any malfunctioning components.
b. The property owner shall inspect the stormwater treatment facilities at least twice per
year and submit an inspection report to PPW at
[email protected] no later than October 1st for the Fall report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report. Written records shall be kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following information:
i. Site address;
ii. Date and time of inspection;
iii. Name of the person conducting the inspection;
iv. List of stormwater facilities inspected;
v. Condition of each stormwater facility inspected;
vi. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and vii. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection.
c. The property owner shall not make any design changes to the system with the Town’s approval.
d. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance and replacement schedule for the stormwater treatment facilities that describes maintenance frequency and responsibility. This maintenance schedule shall be included with the approved Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement. e. The property owner(s) shall reimburse the Town for the cost of site inspections required under the Municipal Regional Permit. f. The property owner(s) shall authorize Town Staff to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the property owner in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety.

97. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES INSPECTION: Prior to covering underground stormwater treatment facilities or final inspection, as applicable, the Applicant must facilitate the testing of all stormwater facilities by a certified QSP or QSD to confirm the facilities are meeting the minimum design infiltration rate. All tests shall be made at on 20 foot x 20 foot grid pattern over the surface of the completed stormwater facility unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. All soil and infiltration properties for all stormwater

ITEM NO. 1.
facilities shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Percolation tests (using Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing) at horizontal and vertical (at the depth of the stormwater facility) shall be conducted for each stormwater facility. A 50 percent safety factor shall be applied to the calculated percolation test and shall be used as the basis for design (the design percolation rate). The geotechnical report shall include a section designated for stormwater design, including percolation results and design parameters. Sequence of construction for all stormwater facilities (bioswales, detention/ retention basins, drain rock, etc.) shall be done toward final phases of project to prevent silting of the stormwater treatment facilities.

98. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos in which the property owner agrees to maintain the vegetated areas along the project’s Los Gatos Boulevard and Burton Road frontages located within the public right-ofway. The agreement must be executed and accepted by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit.

99. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit for approval a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan prior to the issuance of any building permit within a phase. The TDM plan shall include measures that are required to obtain the goal of a 15 percent vehicle trip reduction. Such measures may include bicycle facility provisions, shower facilities, local shuttle service, transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentive, designated car share parking, or other trip-reducing measures. The TDM plan shall also include a TDM Coordinator and identify the requirement for an annual TDM effectiveness report to be submitted the Town of Los Gatos. The TDM Plan shall be approved prior to the first occupancy of the given phase. 100. DEDICATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BURTON ROAD CONNECTION: The Applicant shall dedicate an irrevocable, nonexclusive Public Access Easement (“PAE”) over Lots AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, CC, and a portion of Lot AA as shown on the vesting tentative map to the Town to accommodate the Town or a third-party’s future construction of a throughconnection from the project site to Burton Road. Upon completion of the through-connection, the PAE shall allow public vehicular access. The PAE shall be conveyed to the Town on the final map phase that includes Lots AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, CC, and AA and perfected with an Easement Agreement that includes plats and legal descriptions of the PAE, the form of which shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Town Engineer and the Town Attorney. The Easement Agreement shall include rights for the Town or its designee to construct the future through-connection within the PAE area using a design approved by the Town, subject to the condition that the party performing such construction shall repair or replace any improvements not designated for removal and that are damaged during construction, including without limitation, any public or private utilities within the PAE and improvements located outside the PAE.

ITEM NO. 1.
101. LOS GATOS BOULEVARD, SAMARITAN DRIVE, AND BURTON ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CONTRIBUTION: Upon completion of a future through-connection from the project site to Burton Road, the project would contribute additional traffic to the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard/Burton Road, which would be addressed through traffic signal improvements conceptually estimated to cost $590,000 plus a 25 percent ($147,550) design and construction contingency for a total of $737,500. The project’s fair share contribution for the necessary improvements is calculated to be 22.9 percent resulting in a shared cost estimate of $168,887.50. Funding shall be submitted by the applicant within 30 days of notice from the Town that the connection between the development and Burton Road is complete.
102. VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES: For projects that would generate VMT, one or more VMT reduction strategies included in the SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the Town of Los Gatos (July 2020) document shall be required to reduce VMT of the project. Examples of VMT reduction strategies that shall be implement are provided below. The VMT reduction strategies are organized by their relative scale for implementation (i.e., individual site level, Town-wide level, and regional level).

Individual Site Level
• Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules: This strategy relies on effective internet access and speeds to individual project sites/buildings to provide the opportunity for telecommuting. This strategy would reduce commute VMT but also result in a change in VMT for other travel purposes; thus, this strategy should consider the net change in the Town’s project-generated VMT.
• Provide Ride-Sharing Programs: This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling by project site/building tenants. • Provide Local Shuttles: This strategy focuses on providing local shuttle service. The local shuttles would provide service to transit hubs, schools, commercial centers, and residential areas to improve transit connectivity and address the “first/last mile” problems. Alternatively, a demand responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting to private transportation network companies (TNCs) or taxi companies. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation.
• Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle: This strategy relies on employers purchasing or leasing vans or shuttles, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. Vanpools typically service employee’s commute to work, while shuttles service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Scheduling and rider charges, if any, are within the employer’s purview.

Town-Wide Level

ITEM NO. 1.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements: This strategy focuses on creating a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network within the project and connecting to nearby destinations. Projects in Los Gatos tend to be smaller so the emphasis of this strategy would likely be the construction of network improvements that connect the project site directly to nearby destinations. Alternatively, implementation could occur through an impact fee program or benefit/assessment district based on regional or local plans such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Connect Los Gatos.
• Provide Traffic Calming Measures: This strategy combines the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) research focused on traffic calming with new research on providing a low-stress bicycle network.

Traffic calming creates networks with low vehicle speeds and volumes that are more conducive to walking and bicycling. Building a low-stress bicycle network produces a similar outcome. One potential change in this strategy over time is which could enhance the effectiveness of this strategy. • Implement Car-Sharing Program: This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for those trips where vehicle use is essential. Examples include programs like ZipCar, Car2Go, and Gig.
• Limit Parking Supply: When combined with companion TDM measures, reduced parking supply discourages driving by limiting easy and convenient parking options. Implementation of this strategy may require reducing (or removing) minimum parking requirements and allowing developers to use shared parking strategies.
• Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost: Unbundling separates parking costs from property cost, for instance by not including a parking space in a residential unit’s rent, or by requiring employers to lease each parking space separately from the building owner. This strategy ensures that the user understands that the cost of driving includes parking and can encourage people to use an alternative mode to save money. • Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street): This strategy focuses on implementing a pricing strategy for parking by pricing all on-street parking in central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Priced parking would encourage “park once” behavior and may also result in area-wide mode shifts.

Regional Level
• Increase Density: This strategy focuses on increasing density of land uses, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance, to reduce

ITEM NO. 1.
distances people travel and provide more travel mode options. This strategy also provides a foundation for many other strategies. For example, densification increases transit ridership, which justifies enhanced transit service.
• Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments: This strategy focuses on inclusion of mixed uses within projects or in consideration of the surrounding area to minimize vehicle travel in terms of both the number of trips and the length of those trips.
• Increase Transit Accessibility: This strategy focuses on encouraging the use of transit by locating a project with high density near transit. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a bus station is referred to as a transit-oriented development (TOD).
• Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing: This strategy provides greater opportunities for lower income families to live closer to job centers since income effects probability that a commute will take transit or walk to work.
• Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed: This strategy focuses on improving transit service convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving. Given existing land use density in Los Gatos, this strategy may be limited to traditional commuter transit where trips can be pooled at the start and end locations, or it may require new forms of demand-responsive transit service. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation, substantial changes to current transit practices, and would not likely be applicable for individual development projects.
• Implement Area or Cordon Pricing: This strategy focuses on implementing a cordon (i.e., boundary) pricing scheme, where a cordon is set around a specific area to charge a toll to enter the area by vehicle. The cordon location is usually the boundary of an area with limited points of access.

The cordon toll may be constant, applied during peak periods, or be variable, with higher prices during congestion peak periods. The toll can also be based on a fixed schedule or be dynamic, responding to real-time congestion levels. Note that implementation of this strategy requires alternative modes of travel that are available and reliable, such as highquality transit infrastructure. 103. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (TMA): In the event that the Town adopts a TMA policy in the future, the Town and/or future owners and operators of development in the North 40 Phase II area (inclusive of the properties designated as Phase II in the North 40 Specific Plan as of the date of the project’s SB 330 preliminary application) other than the project shall participate in the TMA to fund, implement, coordinate and manage VMTreduction programs as determined appropriate by the TMA members. The TMA shall also be responsible for conducting TDM monitoring to quantify

ITEM NO. 1.
performance required by the Town. The Applicant (or the HOA formed by Applicant) shall join and maintain membership in any TMA formed with service area that includes the project site within either 6 months after the TMA formation or the date of occupancy of the first unit in the project, whichever is later. Participation in the TMA shall be optional for the operator of the affordable housing located on Lot 19.
104. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE: All new buildings, including parking garages shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders throughout their interiors. Prior to issuance of the final occupancy permit, the Applicant shall conduct a radio signal survey demonstrating compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code and the applicable provisions of NFPA 72 (National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code) and NFPA 1221 (Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems). Radio coverage must meet a minimum signal strength of -95 dBm, ensuring at least 95 percent coverage throughout general building areas and 99 percent coverage within critical areas, as defined by these standards. If the survey shows inadequate coverage, the Applicant shall install an approved Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS), such as an FCC-certified signal booster or distributed antenna system (DAS), meeting the requirements of the California Fire Code and referenced NFPA standards. All ERRCS installations must include battery backup, monitoring systems, and shall be tested and approved by the Fire Marshal (or designee) prior to occupancy. With approval of the Community Development Director and Police Chief, the requirements in this condition can be waived or modified when such change would not unnecessarily impair the provision of emergency communication as specified in this condition.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES DURING THE

CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A CONDITION, AT THAT TIME.
105. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SETUP: All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way.
106. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION NOTICE: The contractor shall notify the PPW Inspector at least ten (10) working days prior to the start of any construction work. At that time, the Contractor shall provide an initial project construction schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list. 107. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: The contractor shall submit the project schedule in a static PDF 11-inches by 17-inches format and Microsoft Project, or an approved equal. The Contractor shall identify the scheduled critical path for the installation of improvements to the approval of the Town Engineer. The schedule shall be updated monthly and submitted to the PPW Inspector in the same formats as the original.

ITEM NO. 1.
108. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HANDOUT: The Contractor shall provide to the Town Engineer an approved construction information handout for the purpose of responding to questions the Town receives regarding the project construction. 109. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION: The Contractor shall always provide a qualified supervisor on the job site during construction. 110. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: All work shown on the Improvement Plans shall be inspected to the approval of the Town Engineer.

Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Town Engineer.
111. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HOURS: Construction activities related to the issuance of any PPW permit shall comply with Town Code Section 16.20.035 which restricts construction to the weekday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. No work shall be done on Sundays or on Town Holidays unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. Please note that no work shall be allowed to take place within the Town right-of-way after 5:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. In addition, no work being done under Encroachment Permit may be performed on the weekend unless prior approvals have been granted by the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer may apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school commute routes.

Onsite project signage must state the project construction hours. The permitted construction hours may be modified if the Town Engineer finds that the following criteria is met:
a. Permitting extended hours of construction will decrease the total time needed to complete the project without an unreasonable impact to the neighborhood.
b. Permitting extended hours of construction is required to accommodate a construction requirement such as a large concrete pour or major road closure. Such a need would be presented by the project's design engineer and require approval of the Town Engineer.
c. An emergency situation exists where the construction work is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition resulting in obvious and eminent peril to public health and safety. If such a condition exists, the Town may waive any of the remaining requirements outlined below. d. The exemption will not conflict with any other condition of approval required by the Town to mitigate significant environmental impacts. e. The contractor or property owner will notify residential and commercial occupants of adjacent properties of the modified construction work hours. This notification must be provided three days prior to the start of the extended construction activity.
f. The approved hours of construction activity will be posted at the construction site in a place and manner that can be easily viewed by any interested member of the public.

ITEM NO. 1.
g. The Town Engineer may revoke the extended work hours at any time if the contractor or owner of the property fails to abide by the conditions of extended work hours or if it is determined that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of adjacent residential or commercial properties are impaired because of the location and nature of the construction.
h. The waiver application must be submitted to the PPW Inspector ten (10) working days prior to the requested date of waiver.
112. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BMPs: All construction activities shall conform to the requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinances, the project specific temporary erosion control plan, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer adopted an in effect as of April 17, 2023, when undertaking construction activities.
113. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION: The following provisions to control traffic congestion, noise, and dust shall be followed during site excavation, grading, and construction:
a. All construction vehicles should be properly maintained and equipped with exhaust mufflers that meet State standards.
b. Travel speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour. c. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible.
d. Water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the
Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to ensure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project.
e. Watering on public streets and wash down of dirt and debris into storm drain systems is prohibited. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the PPW Inspector, or at least once a day.

Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one lateafternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. Recycled water shall be used for construction watering to manage dust control where possible, as determined by the Town Engineer. Where recycled water is not available potable water shall be used. All potable construction water from fire hydrants shall be coordinated with the San José Water Company.

ITEM NO. 1.
f. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Construction Inspector.
g. Construction grading activity shall be discontinued in wind conditions in excess of 25 miles per hour, or that in the opinion of the PPW Inspector cause excessive neighborhood dust problems.
h. Site dirt shall not be tracked into the public right-of-way and shall be cleaned immediately if tracked into the public right-of-way. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris shall not be washed into the Town’s storm drains.
i. Construction activities shall be scheduled so that paving and foundation placement begin immediately upon completion of grading operation. j. All aggregate materials transported to and from the site shall be covered in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code during transit to and from the site.
k. Prior to issuance of any permit, the Applicant shall submit any applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer for any lane or sidewalk closures. The temporary traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans and in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and standard construction practices. The Traffic Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of-way. l. During construction, the Applicant shall make accessible any or all public and private utilities within the area impacted by construction, as directed by the Town Engineer.
m. The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The Applicant shall require the soils engineer submit to daily testing and sampling reports to the Town Engineer. 114. MATERIAL HAULING ROUTE AND PERMIT: For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck size as defined by FHWA Standards, the Applicant shall submit a truck hauling route that conforms to Town of Los Gatos Standards for approval. Note that the Town requires a Haul Permit be issued for any hauling activities. The Applicant shall require contractors to prohibit trucks from using “compression release engine brakes” on residential streets. The haul route for this project unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer, shall be northbound Los Gatos Boulevard to Highway 85 or southbound Los Gatos Boulevard to westbound Lark Avenue to Highway 17.

A letter from the Applicant confirming the intention to use the designated haul route shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of any Town permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or

ITEM NO. 1.
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Town Engineer. The Applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on site. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable Town ordinances and conditions of approval.
115. HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES: The Applicant shall submit a tree protection plan showing how all on- and off-site heritage trees will be protected during construction. All approved and installed Heritage Tree protection measures shall be installed prior to any site activities and maintained throughout the period of construction. The Project Arborist shall complete inspections on an as-needed basis during the construction period and shall submit a monthly report of findings in an email or letter to the Town Engineer and Town Planner assigned to this project.
116. PROJECT CLOSE-OUT: Prior to requesting a Final Inspection, the Applicant shall submit to the Town Engineer a letter indicating that all project conditions have been met, and all improvements are complete. All work must be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Town Engineer prior to the first occupancy. All public improvements, including the complete installation of all improvements relative to streets, fencing, storm drainage, underground utilities, etc., shall be completed and attested to by the Town Engineer before approval of occupancy of any unit. Where facilities of other agencies are involved, including those for water and sanitary sewer services, such installation shall be verified as having been completed and accepted by those agencies. In addition, the Applicant shall submit an itemized final quantities list of all public improvements constructed on-site and within the public right-ofway. The final quantities list shall be prepared by the project engineer and be to the approval of the Town Engineer. The final quantities list shall be broken out into on-site and off-site improvements based on the format provided by the Town. Until such time as all required improvements are fully completed and accepted by Town, the Applicant shall be responsible for the care, maintenance, and any damage to such improvements. Town shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or occurring to the work or improvements required for this project prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or Improvements. All such risks shall be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by the Applicant.
117. CONSTRUCTION WORKER PARKING: The Applicant shall provide a Construction Parking Plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be
utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of Town permits and shall be complied with at all times during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan

ITEM NO. 1.
may result in suspension of the Town permits. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§15.40.070). 121. SITE WATER DISCHARGE: In accordance with the Town Code, Prohibition of Illegal Discharges (Los Gatos Town Code Section 22.30.015), the Town Engineer may approve in coordination West Valley Sanitation District the discharge of uncontaminated pumped ground waters to the sanitary sewer only when such source is deemed unacceptable by State and Federal authorities for discharge to surface waters of the United States, whether pretreated or untreated, and for which no reasonable alternative method of disposal is available. Following the verification of the applicable local, state and/or federal approvals, a Discharge Plan will be approved and monitored by the Town Engineer.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES THAT THE USE PERMITTED BY THIS ENTITLEMENT OCCUPIES THE PREMISES.
118. POST CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP): Post construction storm water pollution prevention requirements shall include:
a. The Applicant shall be charged the cost of abatement for issues associated with, but not limited to, inspection of the private stormwater facilities, emergency maintenance needed to protect public health or watercourses, and facility replacement or repair if the treatment facility is no longer able to meet performance standards or has deteriorated. Any abatement activity performed on the Applicant’s property by Town staff will be charged to the Applicant at the Town’s adopted fully-loaded hourly rates.
b. Maintenance of the storm drain inlets “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” plaques to alert the public to the destination of storm water and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. Template ordering information is available at www.flowstobay.org.
c. All process equipment, oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, fertilizers, pesticides, and similar chemical products, as well as petroleum based wastes, tallow, and grease planned for storage outdoors shall be stored in covered containers at all times.
d. All public outdoor spaces and trails shall include installation and upkeep of dog waste stations.
e. Garbage and recycling receptacles and bins shall be designed and maintained with permanent covers to prevent exposure of trash to rain. Trash enclosure drains shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system. f. It is the responsibility of the property owner(s)/homeowners association to implement a plan for street sweeping of paved private roads and cleaning of all storm drain inlets.

ITEM NO. 1.

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
119. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 120. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2.
121. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72. Submit shop drawings (3 sets) and a permit application to the SCCFD for approval before installing or altering any system. Call (408) 341-4420 for more information.
122. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE IN NEW BUILDINGS: (As Noted on Sheet G10) All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems.

CFC Sec. 510.1.
123. FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R3 and Group U occupancies equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1].
124. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: (As Noted on Sheet C17) The fire department connection (FDC) shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2-

ITEM NO. 1.
1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow. [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard]. 125. STANDPIPES REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47.

CFC Sec. 905.
126. PUBLIC/PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Provide public/private fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 450 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 4,500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C.
127. BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES ACCESS: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. 128. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS: (As Noted on Sheet C17) 1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height, as shown on the approved vesting tentative map. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. SCCFD SD&S A-1.
129. TURNING RADIUS: (As Noted on Sheet C17) As shown on the approved vesting tentative map, the minimum inside turning radius is 30 feet and outside turning radius is 50 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends.

ITEM NO. 1.
130. FIRE DEPARTMENT ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet C17) Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Provide an approved fire department roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 50 feet outside and 30 feet inside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be 5%.

Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. [CFC Section 503.2.5].
131. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The fire flow for this project is 6000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. If an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 4500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C102.1.
132. TIMING OF INSTALLATION: (As Noted on Sheet G10) When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4. 133. GROUND LADDER ACCESS: (As Noted on Sheet C17) Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations.

With the climbing angle of seventy-five degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear.

Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access. CFC Sec. 503 and 1029 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2.
134. PARKING: When parking is permitted on streets, in both residential/commercial applications, it shall conform to the dimensions shown on the approved street sections included with the vesting tentative map.

NOTE: Fire lane and turnaround striping shall be provided and verified by site inspection.
135. FIRE LANES REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet C17) Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
136. KNOX KEY BOXES/LOCKS WHERE REQUIRED FOR ACCESS: Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for lifesaving or firefighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The Knox Key Box shall be a of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Locks. An approved Knox Lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Key box maintenance. The operator of the building shall immediately notify the fire code

ITEM NO. 1.
official and provide the new key when a lock is changed or re-keyed. The key to such lock shall be secured in the key box. [CFC Sec. 506].
137. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
138. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
139. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure.

Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.
140. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: (As Noted on Sheet G10) Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2022 edition), the California Electrical Code (2022 edition), the California Fire Code (2022 edition), the California Building Code (2022 edition), and the city ordinances where two-way system is being installed, policies, and standards.

Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. 141. REQUIRED SECONDARY FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS: (As Noted on Sheet C17) Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception:

ITEM NO. 1.

Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted.
142. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6].

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

Direct No.: 415.655.8114
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 1 California Street - Suite 3050
San Francisco, California 94111-5432
voice 415.655.8100 - fax 415.655.8099
www.bwslaw.com
March 6, 2025
Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Supplemental Material for 14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road (APN 424-07-009, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, -116, and -052) Architecture and Site Application S-23-031
Subdivision Application M-23-005
Dear Ms. Shoopman:

On behalf of Grosvenor Property Americas (“Applicant”), we are pleased to submit further updates to our complete application for a development project at 14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road (“Project Site”) in the Town of Los Gatos (“Town”) to develop 450 homes, 15,000 square feet of retail, over 3,000 square feet of commercial and civic space, and associated on- and off-site improvements (the “Project”).

The Applicant submitted a complete preliminary application for the Project on April 18, 2023, and followed with its formal development application on September 18, 2023. The Town found the application complete on April 17, 2024. The Town’s completeness determination included numerous substantive comments regarding the Project. The Applicant supplemented its complete application in May of 2024, and the Town issued a series of written consistency evaluation letters on July 17, 2024. The Applicant submitted additional information on October 3, 2024, which triggered further comments from the Town on October 30, 2024. The Applicant responded with revisions on November 23, 2024, and the Town provided additional written comments on December 23, 2024. Since then, the Applicant team and the Town staff have had ongoing meetings and exchanged written comments. Based on those discussions we believe that this submittal fully responds to the comments raised by the Town in its December 23, 2024 letters.

EXHIBIT 24

ITEM NO. 1.

March 6, 2025

I. Updated Project Description.

The Applicant proposes the construction of the Project, a mixed-use housing development project that includes 450 homes, 15,000 square feet of retail, over 3,000 square feet of commercial and civic space, and associated on- and off-site improvements located in the North 40 Specific Plan area of the Town.

The Project Site is 15.65 total acres, which includes unbuildable areas, areas planned for open space, and all of the land that will be dedicated to the public for access to the Project’s circulation system and public utilities. Excluding the primary backbone public infrastructure and circulation portions of the Project Site that will be dedicated by easement for public use results in a lot area of 14.47 acres, which conservatively includes alleys, open space, and undevelopable land on the Project Site.

The Project Site currently includes eight (8) single family homes, which would be demolished (as anticipated in the previously certified North 40 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report) and replaced by the Project.

The Town’s Housing Element includes the Project Site in its inventory of sites available for housing development that will be affordable to lower income households to accommodate the Town’s RHNA. The Housing Element designates the Project Site for residential development at a minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre, and it assumed a development capacity of up to 461 units. The Project proposes 450 dwelling units on a site area of 14.47 acres, resulting in a gross density of 31.1 du/ac, which is consistent with the Housing Element’s use and density designations.

The Project’s residential program will provide a total of 450 new rental apartments and for-sale and/or rental town homes. Of the 450 total units, the Project will dedicate 77 units as units that will be rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code as affordable rents, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.

The 77 dedicated units will include 67 affordable rental homes available to low and very lowincome households (in addition to one unit reserved for a manager) on approximately 1.25 acres that will be transferred to an affordable housing developer. Ten additional units dedicated to low-income households will be made available in the Project’s mixed-income multi-family building.

The 450 homes are complemented by various resident amenities and community-serving ground floor commercial spaces within the multi-family rental building. The new buildings are arranged around a generously sized central public open space (the “Meadow”), open to all and visible from Los Gatos Boulevard along a pedestrian “Paseo”. The Meadow will feature active uses, landscaping, and an interpretive display that features the existing red barn, that collectively celebrate the Property’s agricultural heritage. The Meadow will also include a new public

ITEM NO. 1.

March 6, 2025

pavilion, which is designed to be adaptable for a variety of civic, community and/or retail uses for future flexibility.

Adjacent to the public open space, a 2,400 square foot barn-inspired commercial space, Building J, is proposed and envisioned to complement both the Meadow’s agrarian theme and the retail uses in Building I. A new 4,800 square foot retail building (Building I) is located closer to Los Gatos Boulevard and is designed to be sub-dividable for multiple tenants and includes generous outdoor dining areas. Building J and Building I are part of approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial space that helps create vibrancy and a sense of place.

The Project includes all necessary access, circulation, streetscape, and landscaping to complement and service the new buildings and to complete relevant sections of the bicycle and pedestrian routes through and around the site. On-site streets will be connected to existing North 40 Phase I streets. The Applicant will dedicate land to the Town to accommodate the future widening of Burton Road and a through-connection between Burton Road and the Project to complete the internal circulation system as anticipated in the North 40 Specific Plan.

II. The Project is Consistent with Applicable Objective Development Standards.

On January 31, 2023, the Town adopted its first version of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update, which was adopted and in effect when the Applicant submitted its complete preliminary application. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the Town’s January 31, 2023 Housing Element did not substantially comply with the requirements of state Housing Element law. The Town made numerous revisions to its Housing Element in response to HCD’s findings before adopting a substantially compliant Housing Element that HCD certified on July 10, 2024. However, because the Project has a vested right to proceed under the ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time the Applicant submitted the preliminary application, the January 31, 2023 Housing Element applies. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).)
The Project proposes to provide 77 of its 450 dwelling units at rents affordable to lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5. Therefore, the Project is “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” as defined in the Housing Accountability Act. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3).) In addition, as discussed above, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element’s land use and density designations. Because the Town identified the Project Site “as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” in its Housing Element, and the Project is consistent with the Housing Element’s specified density, the Town may not “disapprove or conditionally approve” the Project, notwithstanding potential inconsistencies with the Town’s “zoning ordinance [including the North 40 Specific Plan] and general plan land use designation.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5)(A).) This means that the Town’s Housing Element overrides the North 40 Specific Plan’s requirement as applied to the Project.

ITEM NO. 1.

March 6, 2025

Because the Project provides 77 of its 450 dwelling units as affordable to lower income households, it is eligible for benefits under the State Density Bonus Law, including two concessions/incentives that result in cost reductions and unlimited waivers of development standards necessary to accommodate the Project as proposed. (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B), (e).) Attachment A to this letter includes a complete enumeration of all requested incentives/concessions and waivers, and the updated Objective Design Standards checklist references such modifications where appropriate.

Finally, the Project complies with the Town’s affordability requirements as adopted in the BMP Ordinance (Division 6 of Chapter 29 of the Town Code). Of the Project’s 450 total units, 373 units would be rented or sold at market rate. The Town’s BMP Ordinance requires that 20 percent of the 373 market rate units – or 75 units – be reserved as affordable housing.

The Project exceeds this requirement and will dedicate 77 units (21 percent of the market rate units) as units dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code as affordable rents, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.

Note that because the Project’s complete preliminary application was submitted before the Town adopted a Housing Element certified by HCD, the Project is eligible for the Builder’s Remedy. This means that Town would be forbidden from denying the Project, even if the Project were not consistent with the Town’s standards. Although the Project is eligible for the Builder’s Remedy, it is not necessary to invoke the Builder’s Remedy here, because the Project complies with the Housing Element and applicable, objective standards as modified via the State Density Bonus Law.

III. Conclusion
With this submittal, the Applicant has responded to each of the Town’s substantive, applicable comments provided on December 23, 2024, and during subsequent conversations and meetings with Town staff. Accordingly, we look forward to the Project’s Planning Commission hearing in April.

Sincerely,
Eric S. Phillips
Encls.

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 1
14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road
(APN 424-07-009, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, -116, and -052) Architecture and Site Application S-23-031
Subdivision Application M-23-005
Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions Although the Project meets many of the General Plan policies, including the land use and density designated in the Housing Element, and the guidelines of the North 40 Specific Plan, the Applicant seeks incentives or concessions, waivers, and parking reductions pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915).

The Project will dedicate 77 of its 450 units to be rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code at a monthly cost that is an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Note that this level of affordability equals 21 percent of the Project’s market rate units, which exceeds the affordability requirements in the Town’s BMP Ordinance. In addition, by providing this level of affordability, the Project is entitled to the following benefits under State Density Bonus Law:
• A density bonus of 30.5% above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1);
• Two incentives or concessions (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B); for purposes of the State Density Bonus Law, the terms “incentives” and “concessions” are interchangeable, and this summary will use “concession” going forward);
• Waivers or reductions for “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” that provides enough affordable housing to qualify for the State Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915(e)); and • Minimum parking requirements, inclusive of guest parking and including parking provided in uncovered or tandem spaces, that do not exceed specified ratios. (Gov. Code § 65915(p).)
As detailed below, the Applicant proposes to use the State Density Bonus Law’s concessions, waivers, and parking reduction benefits to allow the development of the Project as proposed. In addition, the Applicant reserves the right to modify the request to include different or additional concessions and waivers if needed to address additional applicable development standards.

Concessions

1. Allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings. Section 2.5.10c of the North 40 Specific Plan prohibits residential uses on the ground floor of buildings in the Northern District, which covers the Project site. Because the Housing Element designates the Project site as a site that is suitable for very low, low‐, or moderate‐income households at a residential density of at least 30 du/ac, inconsistency with this zoning standard is not a basis to deny the Project under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5)(A). Accordingly, we do not believe that this standard is applicable to the Project. However, to the extent it applies, the Project proponent requests a concession to allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings.

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 2
Although portions of the Project incorporate commercial elements, it is not financially feasible to develop commercial spaces on the ground floor of all the buildings on the Project site. Therefore, eliminating this development standard will result in cost savings to help provide the level of affordability proposed.1

2. Alternative BMP Phasing Requirements. Los Gatos Municipal Code Section 29.10.3025 requires that “BMP units shall be constructed and Certificate of Occupancies secured concurrently with or prior to the construction of the market-rate units.” It also provides that “The Town Council may grant an exception to the phasing requirements during the project approval process.” Due to the phased nature of the Project, it is necessary for a portion of the Project’s market rate units to develop and receive Certificates of Occupancy to raise sufficient funds to create the building pad and infrastructure necessary to develop the 100% affordable multifamily building on Lot 19 within the Project. Specifically, the Project needs the ability to develop and sell 127 units (29% of the 450 total units in the Project) before being required to develop the 100% affordable multifamily building. If the Project were required to include affordable units within the first 127 units built and developed, it would reduce the return on these units and increase the cost burden of financing the creation of the 100% affordable multifamily building on Lot 19. Therefore, approval of a concession to allow for alternative BMP phasing requirements would result in actual and identifiable cost reductions for the Project.

Notwithstanding this proposed concession, if the mixed-income multifamily building (Building E1) on Lot 18 develops before the Project has secured full financing for the development of Lot 19, the Project would provide BMP units within Building E1 in proportion to the Project’s market-rate units. Moreover, if Building E1 develops after the Project has secured full financing for the development of Lot 19, the Project would provide the 10 BMP units required within Building E1 concurrently with Building E1’s market-rate units.

To memorialize the requested alternative BMP phasing requirements, while continuing to provide the Town with security that all 450 units within the Project would be developed, the Project proposes the following condition be memorialized as part of the Project approvals:

PHASING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF BMP UNITS: At full buildout of the project, sufficient units to qualify the project for two incentives or concessions under the State Density Bonus Law under subdivision (e) of Section 65915 of the Government Code (i.e., 77 units of the project’s 450 units) shall be restricted for occupancy by lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at affordable rents for the assumed household size, calculated pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for each restricted unit. Such units shall constitute the project’s BMP units.
1 See HCD Notice of Violation to City of Elk Grove (October 12, 2022), which concludes that allowing residential ground floor development in mixed use areas that otherwise require ground floor commercial uses results in actual and identifiable cost reductions such that refusal to approve a concession would violate the State Density Bonus Law.

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 3
Prior to the approval of building permits for residential units, the applicant shall execute and record an affordable housing agreement in a form subject to the Town Attorney’s reasonable approval. The affordable housing agreement shall:
• Require the applicant to provide no fewer than 10 BMP units affordable to lower income households in Building E1 on Lot 18 as shown on the vesting tentative map. The BMP units within Building E1 shall be constructed and Certificate of Occupancies secured in proportion with or prior to the construction of the market rate units within Building E1;
• Require the applicant to provide no fewer than 67 BMP units affordable to lower income households with one unrestricted manager’s unit in Building G1 on Lot 19 as shown on the vesting tentative map;
• Restrict BMP units for a term of 55 years from the date of the initial occupancy of the BMP units;
• Include terms regarding provisions for marketing, income certification, and screening of potential renters of BMP units including the financing of ongoing administrative and
monitoring costs.

The affordable housing agreement shall also include the following phasing requirements and performance criteria:
• The Town shall issue no more than 127 Certificates of Occupancy (29% of the 450 total units in the project) until the project satisfies the Affordable Housing Completion Milestone. • The “Affordable Housing Completion Milestone” shall mean:
o The applicant or its assignee has completed all
backbone infrastructure and grading necessary to
serve Lot 19; and
o The applicant or its assignee has accepted an
allocation of 4% or 9% Low Income Housing Tax
Credits to construct no fewer than 67 BMP units
affordable to lower income households with one
unrestricted manager’s unit on Lot 19.
• Until the project achieves the Affordable Housing Completion Milestone, the applicant or its designee shall diligently pursue financing for the construction of the 68 approved units on Lot

19. This shall require, at a minimum, the submittal of an application for private grant funding or county, state, and/or federal government funding at least once per calendar year. • The applicant may elect to commence Building E1 before achieving the Affordable Housing Completion Milestone
subject to the following:

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 4
o If Building E1 is developed before any townhomes,
17% of total units within Building E1 (e.g., 44 of 255
units) shall be provided as BMP units.
o If Building E1 is developed after some or all of the
townhomes have received Certificates of
Occupancy, Building E1 shall provide 44 units as
BMP units plus 17% of the number of townhomes
that have received Certificates of Occupancy (up to
21 additional BMP units in Building E1).
o Once the project achieves the Affordable Housing
Completion Milestone, the affordability restrictions
shall be released from all but 10 units in Building E1.

Waivers
When considering the following proposed waivers, it is important to remember that “[i]n no case may [the Town] apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development [that qualifies for the State Density Bonus Law] at the densities” allowed and with the requested concessions. (See Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1).) Cases have confirmed that once a project qualifies for a density bonus, “the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 774-75; see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346–1347 [waivers must be granted even though redesigning thee project to decrease amenities would reduce the need for waivers].)

1. Increased Maximum Height. Section 2.5.2 of the North 40 Specific Plan and referenced in Policy LU5 sets a maximum building height of 30 feet across the Project site and Section

2.5.7(b) sets a maximum building height of 25 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of Los Gatos Boulevard. The Project requires a waiver to allow the Affordable Multifamily (Building G) units to achieve a maximum height of 63 feet measured from the lowest natural grade to highest roof surface or 61 feet when measured from the proposed grade, and the town home units to achieve a maximum height of 49 feet when measured from the lowest natural grade or 44 feet when measured from lowest proposed grade, and the Mixed‐Income Multifamily (Building E) units to achieve a maximum height of 100 feet from when measured from the lowest natural grade to the highest roof surface or approximately 94 feet when measured from the lowest proposed grade. It should be noted that Building E is approximately 89 feet when measured from Los Gatos Boulevard and that detailed measurements are included in the updated architectural sheets in the attached revised drawings (Planning Comments 18, 27 and 29). The Specific Plan’s development standards do not accommodate the Project’s proposed density, which is allowed pursuant to the adopted Housing Element. Increased height is necessary for each proposed

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 5
building typology to accommodate the proposed unit count and necessary parking facilities across the Project site.2, 3

2. Modified Street Sections. Section 4.13.3 of the North 40 Specific Plan defines a 40’ road section for Section 6d of North A Street with two 12’ drive lanes and two 8’ parking lanes. The Project proposes wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and reduced lane widths; accommodating all of the proposed facilities in the street would require additional right of way that would reduce the amount of developable area for buildings, resulting in a lower unit count. Therefore, the Project proponent requests a waiver from the required street section dimensions.

3. Deviations from Objective Design Standards. The Project has been designed to comply with as many of the Objective Design Standards as feasible while meeting the unit count called for in the Housing Element; however, to physically fit the Project as designed at the density allowed, the following standards must be waived:
• A.2.1. (100% affordable multifamily housing, townhomes, and commercial buildings only) Short-term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated within 50' of each building entry while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space.

In the alternative, the project distributes bike parking throughout the site to balance even distribution and convenience, while also supporting active community use. • A.2.2. (100% affordable multifamily housing, mixed-use multifamily, and townhomes) Long-term bicycle parking is provided at one space per unit. To maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, short-term bicycle parking is provided at a ratio of one space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. • A.3.4.e. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) To maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, long‐term bicycle spaces are proposed to be accommodated with stacked parking. Although the proposed bicycle racks would not meet the Objective Design Standards’ dimensions, a reduction is necessary to provide adequate long-term bicycle parking without reducing the Project’s residential density.
• A.5.1. (Commercial building only) The project is designed to prioritize the pedestrian experience and active ground-floor retail uses where the buildings have frontage on C1 Street, D4 Street, and the Pedestrian Paseo, which is proposed as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. It is necessary to locate surface parking between the buildings and Los Gatos Boulevard, otherwise the Project would need to be redesigned to remove the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density. • A.6.3, (Mixed-use multifamily only) The multifamily building has a parking structure, and a pedestrian access gate cannot be provided without redesigning the Project and 2 In some cases, the height waivers proposed may exceed the more precise heights shown on the architectural plans.

We propose rounding the height up to nearest foot to allow for some variance between the current plans and final construction plans.
3 See HCD Notice of Violation to City and County of San Francisco (December 29, 2022), which concludes that it is a violation of the State Density Bonus Law to approve a project subject to a condition of approval that the applicant reduce the height proposed as a waiver.

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 6
affecting its density. Pedestrians can access the exterior by using an elevator, corridor or stairs.
• A.10.2. (Mixed-use multifamily and townhomes only) The Project requires a new unbroken retaining wall between C5 Street and the neighboring property so long as the adjacent grade remains lower than the Project Site’s grade to support development at the permitted density.
• A.11.1.b. (100% affordable multifamily housing, mixed-use multifamily, and townhomes) The 100% affordable multifamily building cannot accommodate balconies and cannot meet the private open space requirements while maintaining the unit count.

The mixed-use multifamily building can accommodate balconies on only 49% of the units (126 units) without reducing Project density. In addition, it may be necessary for the Project to remove some or all of the roof decks from the townhomes before submitting for building permits.
• A.12.1. (Mixed-use multifamily and commercial buildings only) The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Providing 75 percent of any street-facing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed amenity and conflict with its concession request.
• B.1.1. (Townhomes only) The primary street-facing façade of the townhomes complies with B1.1.1b, c, and f. However, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street, depending on siting, it is not possible for the townhomes to comply with the requirement that all street-facing facades incorporate three of the identified design solutions. • B.1.2. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) An upperstory setback would reduce the density of the Project. • B.3.1. (Mixed-use multifamily only) The mixed‐use multifamily building (E1) cannot comply with the requirement to install horizontal eave breaks every 40 feet of building façade without redesigning the Project and reducing its density. • B.4.1. (Townhomes only) Townhomes comply at Front Facade of each building, but redesigning the Project to differentiate the base of the buildings at the Rear/Garage or Side Facades would affect the overall residential capacity by reducing the building form and floor area for the Project’s residential uses.
• B.4.3. (100% affordable multifamily housing and townhomes only) The 100% affordable multifamily building (6 points) and the townhomes (14 points) cannot reach 16 points through street‐facing façade plan variation while maintaining the unit count. • B.4.4. (Townhomes only) The Project proposes the Meadow as an amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Townhomes H1 and H2 are designed to face the Meadow rather than the street to activate this project amenity. As a result, the garage doors on these two townhomes exceed 40 percent of the length of the façade; otherwise, the Project would need to be designed to modify the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density.
• B.4.6.b. (Commercial building only) The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. To activate the Paseo and accommodate the design of this

ITEM NO. 1.

September 3, 2025 Version
4903-2191-1588 v3 7
Project amenity consistent with the Project’s concession request, the commercial buildings deviate from the façade requirements.
• B.4.10. (Townhome F3 only) Townhome B3 is adjacent to a single-family use and cannot be designed to set back five additional feet from the façade plan of the lower floor without reducing the project’s residential development capacity. • B.4.11. (Mixed-use multifamily building and townhomes only) The mixed-use multifamily building’s balconies extend into the airspace beyond the building footprint, as does the balcony for Townhome F3. This encroachment must be allowed to accommodate the project’s residential density and open space amenities. • B.4.13. (Mixed-use multifamily building only) The mixed‐use multifamily building (E1) cannot comply with the façade requirement without redesigning the Project and reducing its density.

4. BMP Program Standards. As noted above, because the Project is consistent with the Housing Element’s designated density for the Property and because it reserves 77 of its units as affordable to lower income households, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits the Town from denying the Project based on inconsistencies with zoning standards, including the Town’s BMP Program.

However, to the extent applicable, we request a waiver from the BMP Program requirement to provide affordable units proportionately in the same unit type mix as the market rate units and to have the units be dispersed throughout the Property. Because the Project would involve a partnership with a non‐profit developer to provide affordable housing units using tax credits and other financing mechanisms that require the affordable units be consolidated, compliance with the BMP Program requirements would physically preclude development of the Project.

Likewise, requiring larger affordable units would result in few units per building, reducing the Project’s density.

Parking Reductions
Consistent with the standards established in subdivision (p) of Government Code section 65915, the Applicant proposes that the mixed-use multifamily housing building and the townhomes be subject to the following minimum parking ratios, inclusive of guest parking:
• Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space;
• Two to three bedrooms: one and one‐half onsite parking spaces; and • Four and more bedrooms: two and one‐half parking spaces.

Note that the 100% affordable multifamily housing building complies with the Town’s parking standards, which require less parking than the State Density Bonus Law. Therefore, this portion of the request is not applicable to the affordable housing component of the Project.

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025

YES NO N/A SHEET
Obj.

Design
Std.

Yes/No/NA Applicant Response Yes/No/NA Applicant Response Yes/No/NA Applicant Response Yes/No/NA Applicant Response

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.1.1
G3, C6, L1.00
A.1.1
Yes
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway network is provided throughout the side to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking. See Civil Sections on C6 and note added to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00 Yes
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway network is provided throughout the side to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking.See Civil Sections on C6 and note added to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00 Yes
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway network is provided throughout the side to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking. See Civil Sections on C6 and note added to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00 Yes
4-foot-wide min. pedestrian pathway network is provided throughout the side to all on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, vehicular & bicycle parking.See Civil Sections on C6 and note added to Landscape Site Plan on L1.00 A.1.2
G3
A.1.2
Yes
Project Complies
Yes
Project Complies
Yes
Project Complies
Yes
Project Complies

YES NO N/A SHEET
L4.02
A.2.1
G12
A.2.1
No
Bike parking is distributed throughtout the site to consider even distribution and convenience, while also supporting active community use. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. Yes
Short-term bicycle parking is distributed throughout the project site area near building entrances.

No
Short-term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated within 50' of each townhome entry door while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

No
Short-term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated within 50' of each building entry while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

A.2.2
G12
A.2.2
No
Long-term bicycle parking is provided at one space per unit. Short-term bicycle parking cannot reasonably be provided at a rate of one space per dwelling unit while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. One space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area is provided. See sheet G12 for more information.

No
Long-term bicycle parking is provided at one space per unit. Short-term bicycle parking cannot reasonably be provided at a rate of one space per dwelling unit while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. One space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area is provided. See sheet G12 for more information.

No
Long-term bicycle parking is provided at one space per unit. Short-term bicycle parking cannot reasonably be provided at a rate of one space per dwelling unit while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. One space per 2,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area is provided. See sheet G12 for more information.

Yes
One space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area is provided. See sheet G12 for more information.

A.2.3 L4.02 A.2.3 N/A Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Yes Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Yes Project Complies. See 3/L4.02. Yes Project Complies. See 3/L4.02.

X
A.2.4
N/A
A.2.4
N/A
Not applicable, all short-term racks are less than 20 spaces, and distributed throughout the site. N/A Not applicable, all short-term racks are less than 20 spaces, and distributed throughout the site. N/A Not applicable, all short-term racks are less than 20 spaces, and distributed throughout the site. N/A Not applicable, all short-term racks are less than 20 spaces, and distributed throughout the site.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.3.1 A2.100 A4.011
A4.013
A.3.1 Yes Project Complies. See A2.100. Yes Project Complies. See A4.011 and A4.013. N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicable A.3.2 A2.100 A4.020
A4.011 A4.013
A.3.2
Yes
Project Complies. See A2.100.

Yes
Project Complies. See A4.020, A4.011 and A4.013.

N/A
Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

N/A
Not applicable
A.3.3
N/A A3.3a N/A Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided N/A Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicableN/A A3.3b N/A Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided N/A Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicableN/A A3.3c N/A Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided N/A Not Applicable, Bicycle Room Provided N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicable A.3.4
A2.100, A2.300 A4.013
A3.4a
Yes Project Complies. See A2.100 and A2.300. Yes Project Complies. See A4.013. N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicable A2.100, A2.300 A4.013
A3.4b
Yes Project Complies. See A2.100 and A2.300. Yes Project Complies. See A4.013. N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicable A2.100, A2.300 A4.013
A3.4c
Yes Project Complies. See A2.100 and A2.300. Yes Project Complies. See A4.013. N/A Not applicable; Townhomes have garages. N/A Not applicable A2.100, A2.300 A4.013
A3.4d
Yes
Project Complies. See A1.101 and A2.100. 10' separation is provided when loading bikes on both sides (6' aisle + 2' on each side for maneuvering room). 8' separation is provided when loading bikes on one side (6' aisle + 2' on one side for maneuvering room).

Yes
Project Complies. See A4.013.

N/A
Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

N/A
Not applicable
A.3. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I)
Short-term bicycle parking (Class II bicycle parking facility) consists of racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.Short-term bicycle parking space shall be located within 50 feet of the primary pedestrian building entrance.Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of one space per dwelling unit and one space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.

A.1. Pedestrian Access
Objective Design Standard
All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and vehicular and bicycle parking areas shall be internally connected with a minimum four-foot-wide pedestrian pathway or pathway network that may include use of the public sidewalk. The pedestrian pathway network shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street.Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. A pedestrian pathway is exempt from this standard where it crosses a parking vehicular drive aisle.a. Dimensions of 42 inches wide, 75 inches deep, and 54 inches high.

Objective Design Standard
A. SITE STANDARDS
APPENDIX B – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST - CUMULATIVE Objective Design Standard
Long-term bicycle parking facilities (Class I bicycle parking facility) consists of bicycle lockers or bicycle rooms with key access for use by residents.Long-term bicycles parking facilities shall be located on the ground floor and shall not be located between the building and the street Each short-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length and two feet in width.If more than 20-short term bicycle spaces are provided, at least 50 percent of the spaces shall be covered by a permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure.

A.3. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I)A.2. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Class II) Objective Design Standard
b. Must withstand a load of 200 pounds per square foot.c. Opened door must withstand 500-pound vertical load.Bicycle rooms with key access minimum requirements:a. Bicycle rooms shall have a minimum ceiling height of seven feet.b. Bicycle rooms shall contain racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock.c. Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be served by an aisle with a minimum width of six feet.d. Maneuverability space of at least two feet shall be provided between the aisle and long-term bicycle parking spacesMulti-family residential and residential mixed-use buildings shall provide one long-term bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. Developments such as townhomes that include individual garages for each unit shall not be required to provide long-term bicycle parking.Bicycle locker minimum requirements:

Applicants are responsible for accurately responding to each objective design standard listed below by indicating whether each standard has been met or does not apply.

Applicants shall indicate the sheet(s) within the project plans that show compliance with each objective design standard.

Appendix B – OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CHECKLIST

APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITY
Bicycle rooms with key access minimum requirements:

Commercial Buildings
A.2. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)
100% Affordable Housing Mixed Use Multifamily Townhomes

EXHIBIT 25 Page 1106
ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A2.100 A4.013
A3.4e
No
To maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, the Affordable Housing proposes horizontal stacked parking. See sheet A2.100. Each 78" x 34" clear module can store (4) bicycles. Although the proposed bicycle racks would not meet the Objective Design Standards’ dimensions, a reduction is necessary to provide adequate long-term bicycle parking without reducing the Project’s residential density. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. No
To maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, the Multi-family building provides a mix of two-tier lift assist, vertical and circular bicycle racks to provide a higher capacity to meet the requirements. A variety of bicycle rack types are proposed to accommodate a variety of bicycle sizes. See sheet A4.013. Although the proposed bicycle racks would not meet the Objective Design Standards’ dimensions, a reduction is necessary to provide adequate long-term bicycle parking without reducing the Project’s residential density. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not applicable; Townhomes have garages.

N/A
Not applicable

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.4.1
G3
A4.1
Yes Project complies, see G3. Yes Project complies, see G3. Yes Project complies, see G3. Yes Project complies, see G3.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.5.1 G3 A.5.1
Yes
Project complies, see G3.

Yes
Project complies, see G3.

Yes
Project complies, see G3.

No
The project is designed to prioritize the pedestrian experience and active ground-floor retail uses where the buildings have frontage on C1 Street, D4 Street, and the Pedestrian Paseo, which is proposed as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. It is necessary to locate surface parking between the buildings and Los Gatos Boulevard, otherwise the Project would need to be redesigned to remove the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

A.5.2 G3 A.5.2
Yes
Project complies, see G3.

Yes
Project complies, see G3.

Yes
Project complies, see G3.

Yes
Project complies, see G3.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.6.1 A4.011 A4.301 A.6.1
N/A
Not Applicable.

Yes
Multi-family Building has a Parking Structure. At the garage entry closest to D4 Street and going down into level B, a roll-up door is provided. A minimum 18 feet between this roll up door and back of sidewalk is provided. At the garage entry located mid-block along C5 Street and going into level 1, no gates or roll-up door are provided, so the 18 feet clearance is not provided at this location. See sheet A4.011 and A4.301, detail 2.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A.6.2
A4.011
A.6.2
N/A
Not Applicable.

Yes
Multi-family Building has a Parking Structure. See sheet A4.011. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A.6.3
A4.020
A.6.3
N/A
Not Applicable.

No
Multi-family Building has a Parking Structure, but a pedestrian access gate cannot be provided without redesigning the project and affecting its density. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. Pedestrians can access the exterior by using elevator, corridor or stairs. See sheet A4.020.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.7.1
EL100EL300 EL301
A.7.1
Yes
Project complies, see sheets EL100, EL300 and EL301.

Yes
Project complies, see sheets EL100, EL300 and EL301.

Yes
Project complies, see sheets EL100, EL300 and EL301.

Yes
Project complies, see sheets EL100, EL300 and EL301.

A.7.2 EL100 A.7.2
Yes
Project complies, see sheet EL100
Yes
Project complies, see sheet EL100
Yes
Project complies, see sheet EL100
Yes
Project complies, see sheet EL100
A.7.3
L1.00 through L1.11
A.7.3
Yes
Project complies. See L1.00 and landscape enlargements on sheets L1.01 through L1.11.

Yes
Project complies. See L1.00 and landscape enlargements on sheets L1.01 through L1.11.

Yes
Project complies. See L1.00 and landscape enlargements on sheets L1.01 through L1.11.

Yes
Project complies. See notes on L1.00 and landscape enlargements on sheets L1.01 through L1.11.

A.7.4 A2.100-A2.104
A3.1.1.101,A3.2.1.101,A3.3.1.101,A3.4.1.101,A3.5.1.101, A3.6.1.101 A.7.4
Yes
Affordable housing complies; see sheet A2.100-A2.104.

Yes
Multifamily complies; see sheet A4.108.

Yes
Townhomes Comply; See Sheet A3.1.1.101, A3.2.1.101, A3.3.1.101,A3.4.1.101, A3.5.1.101, A3.6.1.101 Yes
Block I and pavilions comply. See 5/A5.202.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.8.1 G4 A.8.1 Yes Project complies. Note added to L1.00 through L1.11. Yes Project complies. Note added to L1.00 through L1.11. Yes Project complies. Note added to L1.00 through L1.11.

Yes See notes on L1.00 and landscape enlargements on
sheets L1.01 through L1.11.

A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any streetfacing façade, and it shall be recessed a minimum of five feet from the street-facing façade of the building.For projects with five or more residential units and that have a vehicle access gate to the parking structure, a pedestrian gate shall also be provided.

Objective Design Standard
Surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street.Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area.

A.6. Parking Structure Access
Objective Design Standard
Off-street parking lots shall have vehicular circulation using an internal vehicular network that precludes the use of a public street for aisle-to-aisle internal circulation.Any vehicular entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 18 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing.

A.5. Parking Location and Design
e. Each horizontal long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length, two feet in width, four-and one-half feet in height. Each vertical long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of three-and one- half feet in length, two feet in width, and seven feet in height.

A.4. Vehicular Access
Objective Design Standard
Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement.

A.8. Landscaping and Screening
Objective Design Standard
At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped.

A.7. Utilities
Objective Design Standard
Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet.Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited.Street-level views of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from sight with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall, as allowed by the Town Code. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and screening that is not landscape material shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building.

A.8. Landscaping and ScreeningA.4. Vehicular AccessA.5. Parking Location and DesignA.6. Parking Structure AccessA.7. Utilities

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A.8.2
L1 series
A.8.2
N/A
Not Applicable.

Yes
Project complies. See note added to L1.00.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A.8.3
L1.00
A.8.3
Yes
Surface parking lots are screened by primary building or 3-foot height landscaping. See sheet L1.00. Yes Surface parking lots are screened by primary building or 3-foot height landscaping. See sheet L1.00. N/A Not Applicable.

Yes
Project complies. See note on Sheet L1.00.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.9.1
A2.100
A.9.1
Yes
100% Affordable Housing complies this this standard - no fences, walls or gates witin setbacks. Yes No fences, walls, or gates within setbacks.

Yes
No fences, walls, or gates within setbacks.

Yes
No fences, walls, or gates within setbacks.

A.9.2 N/A A.9.2 Yes Project complies. Yes Project complies. Yes Project complies. Yes Project complies.A.9.2 N/A A.9.2 N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

A.9.4 A4.011 A4.201 A.9.4
N/A
Not Applicable.

Yes
The multi-family building complies. The overhead roll up open grill door at the basement entry is greater than 50% open free area and view as noted on sheet A4.011 and A4.201.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.10.1
C7-C12
A.10.1
Yes
Project complies.

Yes
Project complies.

Yes
Project complies.

Yes
Project complies.

A.10.2
C7-C12
A.10.2
Yes
Project complies.

No
There is a new retaining wall between C5 street and the neighboring property. Adjacent neighbor existing grade is lower than this project site. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

No
There is a new retaining wall between C5 street and the neighboring property. Adjacent neighbor existing grade is lower than this project site. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

Yes
Project complies.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A.11.1
G11
A.11.1
Yes
Recreational and landscaped spaces are annotated alongside Open Space on Sheet G11.

Yes
Recreational and landscaped spaces are annotated alongside Open Space on Sheet G11.

Yes
Recreational and landscaped spaces are annotated alongside Open Space on Sheet G11.

Yes
Recreational and landscaped spaces are annotated alongside Open Space on Sheet G11.

G11 A.11.a. Yes Project complies. See Sheet G11. Yes Project complies. See Sheet G11. Yes Project complies. See Sheet G11. Yes Project complies. See Sheet G11.

A1.101 A4.030-A4.031
A.11.b.

No
100% Affordable Housing Building cannot accommodate balconies and cannot meet the private open space requirements while maintaining the unit count. See sheet A1.101. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

No
49% of the units (126 units) comply with private recreation space requirement. The remainder of the units cannot accommodate balconies while maintaining the unit count. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

YES
All Townhome units comply as currently designed, see Townhome plan sheets. Note that to achieve the proposed density, it may be necessary for the Project to remove some or all of the roof decks before submitting for building permits, which would cause the Project to fall short of the open space standard. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard would not be applicable, and future modifications would be allowed.

N/A
Not Applicable.

G3 A.11.b.i.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. See sheet G3.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. See sheet G3.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. See sheet G3.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2 Series A3 Series
A4.030-A4.031
A.11.b.ii.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. No 49% of the units (126 units) comply. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. YES All Townhome units comply, see Townhome plan sheets.

N/A
Not Applicable.

G11
A.11.c.

YES
Residential community recreation space (100 sf x 255 units = 25,500 sf) is provided as part of the site-wide open space. See sheet G11.

YES
Residential community recreation space (100 sf x 255 units = 25,500 sf) is provided as part of the site-wide open space. See sheet G11.

YES
Residential community recreation space (100 sf x 255 units = 25,500 sf) is provided as part of the sitewide open space. See sheet G11.

N/A
Not Applicable.

G11
A.11.c.i.

YES
For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the Community Recreation space requirement. Please see sheet G11 for more information. YES For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the Community Recreation space requirement. Please see sheet G11 for more information.

YES
For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the Community Recreation space requirement. Please see sheet G11 for more information.

YES
For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the Community Recreation space requirement. Please see sheet G11 for more information.

A1.101 G11 A.11.c.ii.

YES
100% Affordable Housing building complies. Recreation space requirements are indicated on sheet A1.101. Total site community recreation space is indicated on G11 alongside site Open Space requirements.

YES
For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the Community Recreation space requirement. Please see sheet G11 for more information.

YES
For the purposes of this calculation, the Meadow and the Paseo meet the Community Recreation space requirement. Please see sheet G11 for more information.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A A.11.c.iIi. N/A Not Applicable.

G11
A.11.c.iv.

N/A
Not Applicable.

YES
Project complies without counting the Mixed Use MultiFamily landscaped roof. See sheet G11. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

YES NO N/A SHEET
A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or Residential Mixed- Use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following:a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; andb. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view.

A.10. Retaining Walls
Objective Design Standard
Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment.Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following:a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; andb. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall.

A.11. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot when not already screened by a primary building. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three A.9. Fencing
Objective Design Standard
Fences, walls, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages are prohibited unless used to screen on-site parking spaces from view from the street.Chain link fencing is prohibited.Perimeter barrier gates for vehicles and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit.iii. A project with four or less residential units is exempt from community recreation space requirements.iv. Landscaped roof space can satisfy both required landscaping requirements and community recreation space requirements. Landscaped roof space may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the required landscaping for the site.

A.12. Building Placement
Objective Design Standard
The landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces listed below are required for all qualifying projects. Community recreation spaces and private recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other. Landscaped areas within community recreation spaces can contribute to required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space.a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped.b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimension is six feet in any direction and a minimum area of 60 square feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Landscaped sections of private recreation space shall not count towards required landscaping requirements.i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space.ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of usable private recreation space. Where multiple balconies are provided for a single unit, the 60-squarefoot minimum can be an aggregate of all balconies, provide each balcony meets the requirements for minimum horizontal dimensions.

Objective Design Standard
A.11. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation SpacesA.12. Building PlacementA.10. Retaining WallsA.9. Fencing c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature.i. Community recreation space shall be provided in Residential Mixed-Use developments at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the nonresidential square footage.

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 A.12.1
A1.100
A.12.1
N/A
Not Applicable.

No
The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Providing 75 percent of any street-facing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed amenity and conflict with its concession request. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

No
The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Providing 75 percent of any street-facing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed amenity and conflict with its concession request. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

A.12.2 L1.11 A4.011 A.12.2
N/A
Not Applicable.

YES
Project Complies with all elements utilized. Refer to sheet A4.011 for location of commercial storefront. Amenities below are detailed all along the commercial storefront and shown on L1.11.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

L1.11 A.12.2.a. N/A Not Applicable. YES See note above. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.L1.11 A.12.2.b. N/A Not Applicable. YES See note above. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

L1.11 A.12.2.c. N/A Not Applicable. YES See note above. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

L1.11 A.12.2.d. N/A Not Applicable. YES See note above. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.1.1
See below
B.1.1
YES
100% Affordable Housing - Complies, as noted below.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-Family - Complies, as noted below.

No
The primary street-facing façade of townhomes complies with B1.1.1b, c, and f. However, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street, depending on siting, the Townhomes do not comply. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A4.102
B1.1a
N/A
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable Housing.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-Family - complies, See Sheet A4.102.

N/A
Not utilized for Townhomes.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A3 Series
B1.1b
N/A
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable Housing.

N/A
Not Utilized for Mixed Use Multi-Family.

N/A
The primary street-facing façade of the townhomes complies, however, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street, depending on siting, it is not possible for the townhomes to comply with this requirement. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.100-A2.104 A4.101
B1.1c
YES
100% Affordable Housing - complies, See Sheets A2.100-A2.104.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-Family - complies, See Sheet A4.101
N/A
The primary street-facing façade of the townhomes complies, however, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street, depending on siting, it is not possible for the townhomes to comply with this requirement. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
B1.1d
N/A
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable Housing.

N/A
Not Utilized for Mixed Use Multi-Family.

N/A
Not utilized for Townhomes.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.100-A2.104 A4.101
B1.1e
YES 100% Affordable Housing - complies, See Sheets A1.101, A2.100-A2.104. YES Mixed Use Multi-Family - complies, See Sheets A4.101 N/A Not utilized for Townhomes. N/A Not Applicable.

A2.100-A2.104
B1.1f
YES
100% Affordable Housing - complies, See Sheets A2.100-A2.104.

N/A
Not Utilized for Mixed Use Multi-Family.

N/A
The primary street-facing façade of the townhomes complies, however, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street, depending on siting, it is not possible for the townhomes to comply with this requirement. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

B.1.2 N/A B.1.2
No
Not Utilized for 100% Affordable Housing. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. No
Not Utilized for Mixed Use Multi-Family. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. N/A Not utilized for Townhomes.

N/A
Not Applicable.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.2.1
A4.011
B.2.1
N/A
Not Applicable.

YES
Yes, the ground floor facades of the parking structure facing the streets will be fenestrated on a minimum 40% of the facade as noted on sheet A4.011. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

B.2.2 N/A B.2.2 N/A Not Applicable. N/A N/A, there are no upper levels of parking N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.2.3
N/A
B.2.3
N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
N/A, there are no portions of the parking structure façade facing a street longer than 40 feet in length. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
B.2.3.a.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
N/A, there are no portions of the parking structure facade facing a street longer than 40 feet in length. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
B.2.3.b.

N/A
Not Applicable.

N/A
N/A, there are no portions of the parking structure facade facing a street longer than 40 feet in length. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

Objective Design Standard
Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street:a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet;To ensure buildings provide a continuous frontage along sidewalks, development in commercial zones shall place at least 75 percent of any ground floor street-facing façade on or within five feet of the setback line designated in the Town Code.A Residential Mixed-Use project with a ground-floor non-residential use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements:
a. Landscape materials or raised planters;b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches;c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; orb. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet;c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane;d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade.e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; orf. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater.Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade.

B.2. Parking Structure Design
Objective Design Standard
The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade.Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened at a minimum 10 percent and up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure.Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions:
a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or B.2. Parking Structure Design
b. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation.

B. BUILDING DESIGNB.1. Massing and Scale
d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use.

B. BUILDING DESIGNB.1. Massing and Scale

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.3.1
A2.104
B.3.1
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, See sheet A2.104
No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. YES Townhomes comply - see A3.1.2.200 through A3.7.2.200. N/A Not Applicable.

A2.104
B3.1.a.

YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, See sheet A2.104
No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. YES Townhomes comply. Please see sheets A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200, A3.3.2.200, A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200, A3.6.2.200, A3.7.2.200. N/A Not Applicable.

A2.104
B.3.1.b.

YES
YES,MIN 2' PROJECTION are indicated to demonstrate compliance, See sheet A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201. No Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.104
B3.1.c.

YES
YES,MIN 2' CHANGE IN HEIGHT are indicated to demonstrate compliance, See sheet A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. YES All townhomes comply. See sheets A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200, A3.3.2.200, A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200, A3.6.2.200.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.104
B3.1.d.

YES
YES, CHANGE IN PITCH are indicated to demonstrate compliance, See sheet A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201. No Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.104
B3.1.e.

YES
YES, PARAPET ANNOTATIONS AREINDICATED TO demonstrate compliance, See sheet A2.104 AND A2.200-A2.201.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

B.3.2 N/A B.3.2 N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.B.3.3 A2.104 B.3.3 N/A Not Applicable, as there is no dormer on the 100%Affordable Building N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.3.4 N/A B.3.4 N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

YES NO N/A SHEET
B.4.1 A2.200-A2.201
A3 Series A4.400-
A4.401
B.4.1
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies. See sheet A2.200-A2.201 YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies with two of the solutions, items b and d.

No
Townhomes comply at Front Facade of each building, but redesigning the Project to differentiate the base of the buildings at the Rear/Garage or Side Facades would affect the overall residential capacity by reducing the building form and floor area for the Project’s residential uses. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.200-A2.201
A3 Series
B4.1.a.

YES 100% Affordable Housing complies. See sheet A2.200- A2.201 N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

A3 Series A4.200 A4.104
B4.1.b.

N/A
Not Utilized.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies. For the balcony length calculations, see sheet A4.104 N/A Not Applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.200 A2.201 B4.1.c.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A2.200-A2.201
A3 Series A4.200-
A4.201
B4.1.d.

YES
100% Affordable Housing complies. See Notes on sheet: A2.200, A2.201 YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies.See sheets A4.200-A4.201 N/A Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Applicable.

A3 Series
B4.1.e.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A Not Applicable.

B.4.2 A2.200-A2.201
A3 Series A4.200-
B.4.2
YES 100% Affordable Housing complies. See sheet A2.200- A2.201
YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies.

See sheets A4.200-A4.202
YES All Townhomes comply. See A3 Series. N/A Not Applicable.

YES NO SHEET
B.4.3 B.4.3
No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. YES Mixed Use Multi-family - complies, see below for point break-down and total points summary. No Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.
o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8
po
B.4.3 N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Applicable. o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; 6 po
A4.200 A4.201 B.4.3 N/A Not Utilized. YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 6 points N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Applicable. o Building cornice; 5
points
A4.200 A4.201 A4.400 A4.401
B.4.3
N/A
Not Utilized.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 5 pointsBuilding cornices are used on street-facing facades as shown on sheets A4.200-A4.201 and A4.400-A4.401 N/A Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Applicable.
o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light fixture per 15 linear feet. 3 point
A4.200 A4.201
B.4.3
N/A
Not Utilized.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 3 pointsRefer to sheets A4.200-A4.201 for sconce lighting spacing calculations.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Applicable.
 Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 6point
B.4.3
N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

YES
All Townhomes comply, 6 points
N/A
Not Applicable.
 Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade;
5po
B.4.3
N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

YES All Townhomes comply, 5 points N/A Not Applicable.
 Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade;
5po
B.4.3
N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A
Not Utilized.

N/A Not Applicable.
 Materials and color changes; 3
po
A2.200- A2.202 A4.200- A4.202
B.4.3 YES 100% Affordable Housing complies, 3 points YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, 3 points YES All Townhomes comply, 3 points N/A Not Applicable.  Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 po
B.4.3 N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Applicable.  Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or
3po
B.4.3 N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Applicable.  Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels 3 B.4.3 N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Utilized. N/A Not Applicable.

TOTAL 6 Points (G)
14 Points (TH)17 Points (E1)
B.4.3
No
100% Affordable Housing Total = 6 Points
YES
Mixed Use Multifamily Total = 17 Points
No
Townhomes Total = 14 Points
N/A
Not Applicable.

At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies:
a. Gables;b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet;All façade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the streetfacing façade shall be used on all other building façades.

B.4. Façade Design and Articulation (continued)
Objective Design Standard
c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet;d. Change in roof pitch or form; ore. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices.Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed.The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the total roof length at the street-facing façade. The dormer width shall be measured at dormer roof fascia, d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or B.3. Roof DesignB.4. Façade Design and ArticulationB.4. Façade Design and Articulation (continued) Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points:

B.4. Façade Design and Articulation
Objective Design Standard
Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions:
a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade;c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing façade;Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building.

B.3. Roof Design
Objective Design Standard
Architectural features, such as:e. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025 B.4.4 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade.

A4.011
B.4.4
N/A
Not Applicable.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies. See sheet A4.011.

No
The Project proposes the Meadow as an amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Townhomes H1 and H2 are designed to face the Meadow rather than the street to activate this project amenity. As a result, the garage doors on these two townhomes exceed 40 percent of the length of the façade; otherwise, the Project would need to be designed to modify the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

N/A
Not Applicable.

B.4.5 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners. A2.200 A2.201 A3.2 Series A4.4
Series
B.4.5
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, see sheets A2.200-A2.201 YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See A4.4 Series
YES
All Townhomes Total complies, See A3.2 Series N/A
Not Applicable.

B.4.6 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space.

Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements:

A2.200-A2.201 A4.101
B.4.6
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, see sheets A2.200-A2.201 YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See A4.101.

N/A
All Townhomes: N/A
N/A
Not Applicable.
a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor non- residential uses shall meet at least one of the following standards A2.200-A2.201 A4.101
B4.6.a. N/A 100% Affordable Housing: N/A - units accessed through main entry YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See A4.101 and A4.200-A4.202 N/A All Townhomes: N/A N/A Not Applicable. i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or B4.6.a.i. N/A 100% Affordable Housing: N/A - units accessed through main entry N/A Mixed Use Multi-family - not required, other 1 standard met. N/A All Townhomes: N/A N/A Not Applicable. ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet A4.101 A4.101-4.102
B4.6.a.ii. N/A 100% Affordable Housing: N/A - units accessed through main entry YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, See A4.101 and A4.102. N/A All Townhomes: N/A N/A Not Applicable.

YES NO SHEET
A4.200-A4.201
B4.6.b.

N/A
Not Applicable.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see sheet A4.200-A4.201 N/A
Not Applicable.

No
The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. To activate the Paseo and accommodate the design of this Project amenity consistent with the Project’s concession request, the commercial buildings deviate from the façade requirements. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

B.4.7 A2.200-A2.201
A3.2 Series A4.2
Series
A 5.202-A5.203
B.4.7
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, see sheets A2.200-A2.201 YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see A4.101
YES
All Townhomes Comply, see A3.2 Series
YES
Complies. See A5.202-A5.203
A3.2 Series A4.2 B.4.7.a. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable. YES All Townhomes Comply N/A Not Applicable.

A2.200-A2.201 A4.101
B.4.7.b.

YES 100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200-A2.201 or A2.100 YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies. See sheet A4.101 N/A All Townhomes: N/A N/A Not Applicable.

A2.200-A2.201 A4.101
B.4.7.c.

YES 100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200-A2.201 or A2.100 YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies. See sheet A4.101 N/A All Townhomes: N/A YES Complies. See A5.202-A5.203 B.4.8 N/A B.4.8 YES No mirrored windows proposed. YES No mirrored windows proposed. YES No mirrored windows proposed. YES No mirrored windows proposed.

B.4.9 A2.200-A2.201
A3.2 Series A4.2
B.4.9 YES 100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200-A2.201. YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see A4.2 YES All Townhomes comply, see A3.2 Series YES Complies. See A5.202-A5.203 A2.200-A2.201A3.2 Series A4.200-A4.201
B.4.9.a.

YES
100% Affordable Housing - vertical height of awning + canopies is indicated to demonstrate compliance, See sheet A2.200. YES Mixed Use Multi-Family complies -see A4.200-A4.201.

YES
Townhomes comply. Dimensions added to townhome elevation sheets: A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200, A3.3.2.200, A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200, A3.6.2.200, A3.7.2.200 YES
Complies. See A5.202-A5.204
A2.200-A2.201A3.2 Series A4.200-
B.4.9.b.

YES 100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200-A2.201. YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see A4.2 YES All Townhomes comply, see A3.2 Series YES Complies. See A5.202-A5.205 A2.200-A2.201A3.2 Series A4.400-A4.401
B.4.9.c.

YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200-A2.201.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family complies, seeA4.400-A4.401. YES
All Townhomes comply, see A3.2 Series
YES
Complies. See A5.202-A5.206
B.4.10 A2.200-A2.201 B.4.10
N/A
Not Applicable.

YES
Mixed Use Multi-family Complies.

No
All Townhomes comply Except for F3. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.4.11
A2.200-A2.201A3.2 Series
B.4.11
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200-A2.201.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable.

No
All Townhomes comply Except for F3. Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.4.12 B.4.12 N/A Not Applicable. YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

A4.101 B.4.12.a. N/A Not Applicable. YES Mixed Use Multi-family complies, see A4.101. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.4.12.b. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Utilized N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.4.12.c. N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Utilized N/A Not Applicable. N/A Not Applicable.

B.4.13 B.4.13
YES
100% Affordable Housing complies, see A2.200.

No
Because a waiver pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law has been requested, this standard is not applicable. YES All Townhomes comply, see A3.1.2.200, A3.2.2.200, A3.3.2.200, A3.4.2.200, A3.5.2.200, A3.6.2.200, A3.7.2.200 YES
Complies. See A5.202-A5.206
c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces.Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street.c. Shall not be patterned or striped.For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district or existing single- family use, no part of a rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck shall be closer than five feet from the facade plane of the lower floor, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses.Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing nonresidential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint.Residential Mixed-Use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along streetfacing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length:
a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet;b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; orb. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including Residential Mixed-Use buildings: eight feet in widthc. Storefront entry: six feet in widthMirrored windows are prohibited.Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements:a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway;b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; anda. Individual residential entries: five feet in width B.4. Façade Design and Articulation (continued)
b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk.Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions:

B.4. Façade Design and Articulation (continued)
Objective Design Standard

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos N40 Phase II Objective Design Standards Checklist 03.05.2025

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Javier Zaldivar
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Lourdes Gonzalez
Subject: Support for north 40 phase 2
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please see the attached support letter.

I can be reached at . Thank you.

Javier Zaldivar
Executive Director
San Andreas Regional Center
A message from jz's iPhone

ITEM NO. 1.

April 29, 2025
Via
email:[email protected]
April 28, 2025
Re: April 30, 2025 Public Comment Item #1
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of San Andreas Regional Center to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase II Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is funded by the State of California to serve people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act. Our service area includes Santa Clara County and the Town of Los Gatos.

The purpose of this letter is to support the advancement of the North 40 Phase II Development as this project will include 16 apartments subject to a preference for extremely low income people with developmental disabilities. On a daily basis, SARC’s Service Coordinators must address the impact of the lack of permanent supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities in Los Gatos. More than 100 people with developmental disabilities, including families who live in Los Gatos have been referred by SARC to Housing Choices for help finding affordable housing.

Although SARC is not able to pay for residents’ actual housing costs, we are funded to provide a variety of services that help residents with developmental disabilities live successfully in integrated housing in the community. In addition to funding on-site housing support services provided by Housing Choices, SARC will provide a variety of other services depending on the Individual Program Plan of each resident, including, for example, Independent Living, Supported Living, Community Day Programs, Employment Services and Behavioral Support.

The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved ones with disabilities in the future.

I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDDdesignated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.

Please contact me if I can provide any further information.

Javier Zaldivar
Executive Director
San Andreas Regional Center

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 11:44 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD
Subject: Item #1 - Letter of support for North 40 Phase II Development [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please find my letter of support regarding Item #1 for tonight’s Commission meeting.

Thank you,
Jennifer Lucas (she/her)
Manager, Central Coast Office
State Council on Developmental Disabilities
www.scdd.ca.gov
Make your voice count. Share your story
today: bit.ly/scddmedicaid
Stay informed and sign up for our newsletter!

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

The majority of adults with IDD continue to live with their aging parents and caregivers. Many families are grappling with the difficult question of what will happen to their adult children with disabilities when they are no longer able to provide care. This project offers both a housing solution and peace of mind. In fact, the Los Gatos Union High School District’s post-secondary program serves around 30 students with disabilities—several of whom age out each year with no clear next step. North 40 Phase II provides that critical next step.

In addition to being socially responsible, this development plays a pivotal legal role. It supports Los Gatos in meeting its Housing Element obligations and complying with SB 330. Approving this project helps the town avoid risk of state intervention, such as the builder’s remedy, while maintaining local control and alignment with state priorities for affordable, accessible, and inclusive housing.

We urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDDdesignated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.

Thank you for your commitment in addressing the urgent need for affordable and inclusive housing in our community. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information in support of this project.

Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Lucas
Regional Manager, Central Coast Office
CA State Council on Developmental Disabilities
2580 N. First Street, Ste. 240
San Jose, CA 95131

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Sara Grignon
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: April 30, 2025 Public Comment Item #1
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please find the attached public comment for tonight’s meeting.

Thank you,
Sara
Sara Grignon • Central District Director
Hope Services
30 Las Colinas Ln San Jose, CA 95119-1212

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

College of Adaptive Arts
Swenson Flagship Campus at West Valley College
14000 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 | [email protected] | 408-538-3809 Re: April 30, 2025 Public Comment Item #1
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of College of Adaptive Arts to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase II Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

College of Adaptive Arts provides an equitable and lifelong collegiate experience for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Our college sees first-hand how important it is for the students to have access to affordable and inclusive housing. It gives them so much pride and independence to become successful contributing citizens in our community.

The proposal delivers on Los Gatos’ commitment to affordable housing. After years of market-rate development, it is refreshing to see meaningful progress toward housing for all income levels. This project directly responds to the town’s long-standing necessity of creating more inclusive and accessible housing opportunities.

The inclusion of at least 16 units for individuals with IDD is especially critical.

Adults with IDD often face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their strong ties to our community. This project offers them the chance to live independently with dignity, near their families and the services they rely on. These are residents who grew up here, attended our schools, and now deserve the opportunity to thrive in their hometown. Additionally, these individuals would receive onsite support from Housing Choices, a vendor of San Andreas Regional Center, to ensure they are stable in their unit. These services are different than their individual supportive services such as Independent Living Services and Supported Living Services.

People with developmental disabilities have the legal right to live in community-based settings, not institutions, under the Lanterman Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Without affordable housing like Los Gatos North 40 Phase II, many individuals with IDD cannot fully enjoy these rights.

This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal obligations under state housing law, including compliance with its certified Housing Element and Senate Bill 330 (SB 330). Approval of the North 40 Phase II development provides a clear demonstration to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that Los Gatos is taking thoughtful steps to fulfill its affordable housing obligations. Advancing this project reduces the risk of state intervention, such as the imposition of the builder’s remedy, and strengthens the Town’s

ITEM NO. 1.

College of Adaptive Arts
Swenson Flagship Campus at West Valley College
14000 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 | [email protected] | 408-538-3809 position in maintaining local land use authority while aligning with state priorities for fair, inclusive, and accessible housing.

The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved ones with disabilities in the future.

I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDDdesignated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.

Thank you for your commitment in addressing the urgent need for affordable and inclusive housing in our community.

Sincerely,
DeAnna Pursai
Co-founder & Director of Development and Community Outreach

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15863 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Field not completed.

Last Name Field not completed.

Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number Field not completed.

Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
143-151 E. Main St
Message (Required) Letter to Council requesting EIR for SB 330 projects Add An Attachment if
applicable
scan0789.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Gopi Ayer < >
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment, Project North 40, reservation of units for IDD [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Subject: April 30, 2025, Public Comment Item #1
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase 2 Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). As a resident and advocate who cares deeply about housing equity and community inclusion, I believe this project is an essential step forward for Los Gatos.

The proposal delivers on Los Gatos’ commitment to affordable housing.

After years of market-rate development, it is refreshing to see meaningful progress toward housing for all income levels. This project directly responds to the town’s long-standing necessity of creating more inclusive and accessible housing opportunities.

Adults with IDD often face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their strong ties to our community. This project offers them the chance to live independently with dignity, near their families and the services they rely on. These are residents who grew up here, attended our schools, and now deserve the opportunity to thrive in their hometown.

As the parent of an adult with IDD, I have seen him and his small group of friends thrive in Los Gatos, intimate with its geography and comfortable with the choices offered. It is imperative that we find appropriate housing for these people who are a part of the fabric of Los Gatos community.

This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal obligations under state housing law, including compliance with its certified Housing Element and Senate Bill 330 (SB 330).

Advancing this project reduces the risk of state intervention, such as the imposition of the builder’s remedy, and strengthens the Town’s position in maintaining local land use authority while aligning with state priorities for fair, inclusive, and accessible housing.

The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved ones with disabilities in the future.

I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDDdesignated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Gopi Ayer
Mandeep Ayer

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Noa Sklar
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2025 5:33 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Gia Pham
Subject: From the mother of Romi
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commissioners
I am writing to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase 2 Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). As a resident and advocate who cares deeply about housing equity and community inclusion, I believe this project is an essential step forward for Los Gatos.

The proposal delivers on Los Gatos’ commitment to affordable housing. After years of market-rate development, it is refreshing to see meaningful progress toward housing for all income levels. This project directly responds to the town’s long-standing necessity of creating more inclusive and accessible housing opportunities.

Adults with IDD often face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their strong ties to our community. This project offers them the chance to live independently with dignity, near their families and the services they rely on. These are residents who grew up here, attended our schools, and now deserve the opportunity to thrive in their hometown.

My daughter Romi is 22 y/o native to Los Gatos , she is on the autism spectrum. It’s been a lifelong of struggle, but she made the best out of it - she is even graduating college and hoping to become a productive member of society. (She already is). With that being said, it’s time for her to move out of my house to begin and independent life yet I would still like to keep her nearby in Los Gatos for obvious reasons, but the prices are ridiculous! We must must have affordable living options for our special kids as a priority ! By the way - 16 units is not enough! It should be at least double as there are many kids with different kind of disabilities in Los Gatos.

This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal obligations under state housing law, including compliance with its certified Housing Element and Senate Bill 330 (SB 330). Advancing this project reduces the risk of state intervention, such as the imposition of the builder’s remedy, and strengthens the Town’s position in maintaining local land use authority while aligning with state priorities for fair, inclusive, and accessible housing.

The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved ones with disabilities in the future.

I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDD-designated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Noa and Abraham Sklar
Los Gatos
Sent from my iPhone

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan
Subject: Fwd: Legal and Policy Issues Related to Grosvenor N40 Phase II Date: Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:10:38 PM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To: Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development
From: Los Gatos Community Alliance
Date: May 5, 2025 EMAIL 2
Subject: Summary of Legal and Policy Issues Related to Grosvenor N40 Phase II Project This memorandum outlines critical legal and planning concerns regarding the Grosvenor N40 Phase II project, which purports to comply with objective development standards under SB 330 and the Town’s Housing Element. Based on our analysis, the project raises significant inconsistencies with applicable zoning, density, and affordability requirements and merits clarification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

1. Vesting Under a Non-Certified Housing Element
The applicant claims the project vested on April 18, 2023, based on the Housing Element adopted by the Town on January 30, 2023. However, HCD issued a formal determination on April 14, 2023, finding that the element did not comply with State Housing Law. Under Government Code § 65589.5(o), a housing element must be legally &#39;in effect&#39; to vest development standards. Because the January 30, 2023 element lacked HCD certification, it was not in effect at the time of vesting and cannot serve as a valid basis for entitlement.

Importantly, self-certification of a housing element contravenes state law and carries no legal effect under the Housing Element Law.

2. Applicable Zoning Standards at Time of Vesting
As of April 18, 2023, the operative zoning was that established under the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element, which capped residential density at 20 dwelling units per gross acre. The project proposes 28.75 DU/acre and therefore exceeded the applicable density standard. As a result, the project was not compliant with objective zoning on the vesting date and is not entitled to SB 330’s five-hearing limit (Gov. Code § 65905.5(a)).

3. Inconsistency with the Certified 2040 Housing Element The applicant ambiguously refers to compliance with &#39;the Housing Element&#39; without clarifying whether it means the uncertified January 2023 version or the certified 2040 Housing Element adopted July 10, 2024. The certified element designates the site for a minimum density of 30 DU/acre and assumes 464 units. The proposed 450 units at 28.75 DU/acre fall short of this minimum and are therefore inconsistent with adopted policy.

4. Affordable Housing Commitments
The certified Housing Element allocates 273 very low- and low-income units to the project site. The applicant proposes only 77 such units. Moreover, the Planning Director acknowledged on April 30, 2025, that affordability targets for other parcels are unlikely to be met. Under Gov. Code §§ 65863(b)(2)(B) and 65863(e), the Town may require the project to meet full affordability allocations or amend the site inventory to maintain RHNA compliance.

ITEM NO. 1.

5. Separate Projects for BMP Compliance
Of the 77 affordable units proposed, 67 units are being transferred to Eden Housing, which will separately finance, construct, and manage them. The two components will proceed on independent timelines with distinct contractors and funding mechanisms. Eden Housing must obtain approximately $45 million from various federal, state, and local sources in order to finance construction of the 67 units. There are no guarantees that such funding will be secured. This arrangement constitutes two separate projects. Under the Town’s BMP ordinance, the Grosvenor portion must independently meet its affordability obligations.

However, it includes only 10 affordable units out of 383 market-rate units—well below the 20% requirement (75 units).

6. CEQA Compliance and Need for New EIR
The project cannot legally tier from the 2040 General Plan EIR due to substantial new information and changes in policy. The Town Council has formally repealed the Land Use and Community Design elements of the 2040 General Plan—two foundational components of the EIR’s analysis. Additionally, multiple Builder’s Remedy projects have emerged that were not studied in the original EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15163, these constitute significant new information requiring a full project-specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate cumulative impacts including traffic, GHG emissions, infrastructure, and community character.

7. Builder’s Remedy Eligibility
The applicant claims the project is eligible for the Builder’s Remedy but argues it need not invoke it due to compliance with the Housing Element. This is misleading. As noted in Comment 1, the January 30, 2023 Housing Element was not certified by HCD and cannot serve as a legal basis for compliance, meaning the project is, in substance, a Builder’s Remedy proposal. However, its eligibility is also questionable. If the project is correctly viewed as two separate developments—one by Grosvenor and the other by Eden Housing—then the Grosvenor portion alone does not meet the 13% very low-income affordability threshold required to qualify under the Builder’s Remedy. Absent this threshold, the project cannot lawfully claim Builder’s Remedy protections under Government Code § 65589.5(d).

Conclusion and Request for HCD Technical Assistance:

Given the unresolved issues related to vesting, zoning consistency, Housing Element compliance, CEQA, and potential misapplication of the Builder’s Remedy, we strongly urge the Town of Los Gatos to request formal technical assistance from HCD. This review should clarify which standards applied as of the vesting date, confirm whether the Builder’s Remedy is properly invoked, and assess whether affordability and density commitments align with state housing law. Seeking HCD guidance will help ensure the Town’s decisions are legally sound and transparent to the public.

Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
[email protected]

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan; ; Bridgette Falconio; Subject: Los Gatos North Forty - Phase II (HCD reference number HAU0001928) Date: Sunday, June 29, 2025 12:42:19 PM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Mr. Joel Paulson
Director of Community Planning
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Classification of Eden Housing Component as a Separate Project under HAA and SDBL Dear Mr. Paulson,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, I respectfully request that the Town of Los Gatos classify the 1.25-acre affordable housing component, to be developed by Eden Housing within the 450-unit Grosvenor project (North 40 Phase II) in the North 40 Specific Plan area, as a separate project under California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code § 65589.5) and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Government Code § 65915). The following arguments, supported by the 9 separate APN parcels listed in the housing element site inventory, demonstrate that the Eden Housing component is a distinct project, despite the single application and CEQA review. Grosvenor’s claim of a single integrated project appears motivated to meet the Below Market Price (BMP) ordinance (20% of market-rate units) by including the 67 Eden Housing units (77 ÷ 373 = 20.6%), avoiding additional affordable units on the 14.4- acre parcels.

Legal Subdivision via Deeded Land Transfer and 9-Parcel Structure The 1.25-acre parcel will be deeded to Eden Housing with a separate title, constituting a legal subdivision under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et seq.). The North 40 Phase II site’s division into 9 separate APN parcels, listed individually in the housing element site inventory, confirms the 1.25 acres as a distinct parcel, enabling Eden Housing to independently own, develop, and manage the 67 affordable units (plus one manager unit).

Summary: The deeded title and 9-parcel structure establish legal subdivision, supporting a separate project.

Non-SDBL Donation Enhances Separation
The donation of the 1.25-acre parcel, not under SDBL (§ 65915), is a contribution of land value for Eden Housing’s expertise, reducing regulatory linkage to the Grosvenor project. This independent transaction allows Eden Housing to operate without SDBL-related coordination, aligning with HCD’s recognition of parcel-specific evaluations (HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, 2023).

Summary: The non-SDBL donation positions the 1.25 acres as a standalone partnership, reinforcing

ITEM NO. 1.
separation.

Independent Financing Structure
Eden Housing will finance the 67 units separately, likely through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and conventional financing, distinct from the Grosvenor project’s funding for the 383 units. TCAC Regulations (§ 10325(c)(1)) and HCD’s Multifamily Housing Program Guidelines (§ 7304) prioritize fee title ownership, which the deeded parcel satisfies, establishing a distinct operational scope.

Summary: Independent financing supports the 1.25 acres as a separate project with its own funding.

Separate Development Timeline
The 1.25-acre component will follow a distinct timeline driven by LIHTC cycles, differing from the Grosvenor project’s schedule. The non-SDBL donation reinforces this temporal separation, aligning with HAA and SDBL’s recognition of independent projects.

Summary: A separate timeline establishes the 1.25 acres as a distinct project with independent execution.

Independent Management
Eden Housing will manage the 67 units independently, with distinct affordability restrictions and tenant protocols, separate from the Grosvenor project’s components. This operational independence supports the standalone status under HAA (§ 65589.5(d)(5)(A)).

Summary: Independent management positions the 1.25 acres as a separate project with distinct operations.

Compliance with Housing Element Density Requirements
The 1.25-acre parcel achieves 53.6 du/ac (67 units ÷ 1.25 acres), exceeding the housing element’s 30 du/ac minimum (per the December 15, 2022, HCD letter to Watsonville). The 9-parcel structure indicates HCD recognizes the 1.25 acres as a distinct RHNA site, fulfilling lower-income housing obligations (Health and Safety Code § 50079.5), unlike the 14.4 acres (26.6 du/ac).

Summary: Density compliance and 9-parcel recognition support the 1.25 acres as a separate RHNA project.

Addressing Unified Application and CEQA Review
The single application and North 40 EIR reflect coordination, but the deeded title, non-SDBL donation, and 9-parcel structure enable separate entitlements. CEQA allows distinct reviews for subdivided parcels (Guidelines § 15378), outweighing the unified process.

Summary: The unified application is outweighed by factors enabling separate entitlements.

Grosvenor’s Motivation to Claim Integration
Grosvenor’s claim of integration aims to meet the BMP ordinance’s 20% affordability requirement for market-rate units (77 ÷ 373 = 20.6%) by including the 67 Eden units. If separated, the Grosvenor parcels (10 ÷ 373 = 2.68%) require ~75 additional affordable units, supporting separate evaluation to uphold BMP compliance.

Summary: Grosvenor’s BMP motivation reinforces the need to treat the 1.25 acres as a separate project.

Conclusion and Request
The deeded title, non-SDBL donation, independent financing, separate timeline, independent management, density compliance, and 9-parcel structure demonstrate that the Eden Housing component is a separate project under HAA and SDBL. Grosvenor’s BMP strategy underscores the need for separate evaluation. We request the Town assess the 1.25-acre parcel independently, potentially approving it apart from the non-compliant Grosvenor project (28.75 du/ac). Please provide the housing element site inventory, parcel map, donation agreement, entitlement records, financing details, and timeline to confirm this structure. We appreciate your consideration and are available to discuss further.

ITEM NO. 1.

Sincerely,
Jak Van Nada on behalf of the
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.tow

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan;
Subject: North 40, Phase II
Date: Sunday, July 20, 2025 7:50:50 PM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
September 20, 2025
Dear Mr. Paulson,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, we urge the Town to require Grosvenor to provide reasonable documentation supporting its request for two concessions under the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) for the North 40 Phase II project. These concessions appear to benefit 17 market-rate townhome buildings along the site’s western and northern edges—structures not directly tied to the 67-unit affordable Building G1 being developed by Eden Housing or the 10 affordable units in mixed-use Building E1.

Under Government Code § 65915, subdivisions (d)(1)(A) and (k), concessions must result in identifiable and actual cost reductions necessary to provide affordable housing.

Concessions that merely increase profitability or reduce the cost of market-rate development do not meet this statutory requirement. In this case, Grosvenor has not demonstrated how the requested concessions materially reduce costs associated with the affordable units, particularly when those units are in separately financed and developed buildings.

Grosvenor has cited HCD’s October 12, 2022, letter to the City of Elk Grove. However, the facts of that case involved a single integrated building—the Oak Rose Apartments—containing both affordable and market-rate units. HCD found that the City had improperly denied a concession for ground-floor residential use by failing to consider construction costs and foregone rental income. That situation differs materially from North 40 Phase II, where the affordable and market-rate components are physically, financially, and operationally separate.

The Elk Grove letter does not waive the statutory requirement that concessions produce actual cost savings tied to affordability. Nor does it alter the legal burden on developers to present documentation justifying such concessions. As confirmed by Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, local governments may reject concessions not supported by evidence of cost reductions for affordable units, provided their denial is based on substantial evidence.

We respectfully request that the Town uphold the integrity of the SDBL by requiring Grosvenor to substantiate its concession requests with documentation showing direct cost savings associated with the affordable housing components. Doing so ensures transparency, compliance, and the effective implementation of the SDBL’s affordability objectives.

Please feel free to contact us should you have questions or wish to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

ITEM NO. 1.

Jak Van Nada - on behalf of,
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan;
Subject: RE: Inapplicability of Prior CEQA Documents to the North 40 Phase II Final Transportation Study (Hexagon, February 18, 2025)
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:30:58 PM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
June 24, 2025
Joel Paulson
Director of Community Development
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Inapplicability of Prior CEQA Documents to the North 40 Phase II Final Transportation Study (Hexagon, February 18, 2025)
Dear Mr. Paulson:

On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, we submit the following comments regarding the North 40 Phase II Final Transportation Study, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and dated February 18, 2025. We respectfully challenge the conclusion that no further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required for the proposed development based on outdated and legally insufficient environmental documents.

Specifically, the transportation study improperly relies on the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, both of which no longer reflect the current land use policy framework, CEQA transportation standards, or the actual development conditions within the Town. Our concerns are outlined below.

1. The 2040 General Plan EIR Is No Longer a Valid Tiering Document The 2040 General Plan EIR cannot lawfully serve as a tiering document for CEQA purposes because the 2040 Land Use Element on which it was based has been repealed. In November 2023, the Town Council formally rescinded the 2040 Land Use and Community Design Elements and adopted the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element, which introduced significantly different development patterns, densities, and land use designations.

Moreover, at the time the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared, the 2023–2031 Housing Element had not yet been drafted, let alone adopted or certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Consequently, the Housing Element—and the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ) that was created to meet the Town’s RHNA obligations—was not analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The HEOZ materially increased allowable residential densities in specific, concentrated locations, including areas along Los Gatos Boulevard, in order to accommodate the Town’s RHNA obligations. This pattern of focused high-density development is fundamentally different from the more evenly distributed, town-wide growth pattern assumed and

ITEM NO. 1.
analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

CEQA Guidelines §§ 15152 and 15168 permit tiering only when the subsequent project remains within the scope of a valid prior EIR. When the foundational planning assumptions are no longer in effect—and where a major new planning program such as the HEOZ was not evaluated—the associated EIR becomes legally and factually inapplicable. Therefore, the Town may not rely on the 2040 General Plan EIR to satisfy CEQA for the North 40 Phase II project.

2. The North 40 Specific Plan EIR Is Outdated and Noncompliant with Current CEQA Standards The North 40 Specific Plan EIR is similarly outdated and legally deficient.

It was prepared prior to the enactment of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, which mandates the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)—not Level of Service (LOS)—as the metric for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA.

Because the North 40 EIR does not evaluate VMT impacts, it fails to meet current CEQA requirements. Additionally, the transportation assumptions in the North 40 EIR no longer reflect existing or reasonably foreseeable development in the area, rendering its trip projections and mitigation measures obsolete.

3. The Town’s Failure to Adopt a Certified Housing Element Triggered Builder’s Remedy The Town failed to adopt a state-certified Housing Element by January 31, 2023, as required by state law. This triggered the Builder’s Remedy under the Housing Accountability Act, which limits the Town’s ability to deny or condition qualifying housing proposals.

As a result, the Town has received multiple Builder’s Remedy applications proposing significantly higher residential densities than those analyzed in either the 2040 General Plan EIR or the North 40 Specific Plan EIR. These applications are clustered primarily along Los Gatos Boulevard, including in proximity to the North 40 project area. The Phase II transportation study fails to account for this fundamental change in development intensity and pattern.

4. The Cumulative Impacts of Builder’s Remedy Projects Have Not Been Analyzed CEQA requires a cumulative impacts analysis under Guidelines § 15130 to evaluate whether a proposed project, when considered together with other foreseeable development, would cause significant environmental effects. The Phase II study fails to analyze or even acknowledge the cumulative impacts of high-density Builder’s Remedy projects now pending along Los Gatos Boulevard.

Given the proximity of these projects to North 40 Phase II, their combined impacts on VMT, traffic congestion, and circulation conditions are both foreseeable and substantial. Without this analysis, the Town lacks a legally adequate basis to conclude that the Phase II project will not result in new or more severe transportation impacts than those previously analyzed.

5. Actual Development Exceeds Prior Assumptions and Maximums Established by the North 40 Specific Plan and General Plan EIRs
The actual and proposed development within the North 40 area now substantially exceeds both the assumptions analyzed in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR and 2040 General Plan EIR, as well as the development caps established by the North 40 Specific Plan itself.

The adopted North 40 Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 270 residential units, along with up to 250,000 square feet of office or hotel uses and 400,000 square feet of other commercial uses.

Notably, even the two higher-density alternatives studied in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR evaluated a maximum of only 364 residential units. The current scale of development significantly exceeds the scope of any scenario considered in the environmental review.

Specifically:

ITEM NO. 1.

Phase I has already delivered 320 residential units and approximately 57,500 square feet of commercial space;
Phase II proposes an additional 450 residential units, along with approximately 15,000 square feet of retail and 3,000 square feet of civic space; A Builder’s Remedy application for 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard proposes 117 additional units; and
The remaining undeveloped parcels within the Specific Plan Area, as identified in the Housing Element site inventory, are assumed to accommodate another 103 units.

This results in a cumulative total of 990 residential units proposed or constructed—nearly three times the amount allowed under the Specific Plan and far beyond what was studied in any of the project alternatives.

Neither the North 40 Specific Plan EIR nor the 2040 General Plan EIR evaluated the environmental impacts, particularly transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), of this scale or intensity of development. Because this level of development materially exceeds prior planning assumptions, the Town is required to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15162, with a specific focus on cumulative impacts from nearly 1,000 residential units now planned for the area.

Conclusion:

The Town of Los Gatos cannot rely on either the 2040 General Plan EIR or the North 40 Specific Plan EIR to satisfy its CEQA obligations for the North 40 Phase II project. The repeal of the 2040 Land Use Element; the outdated transportation metrics in the North 40 EIR; the unexamined impacts of the HEOZ; and the pending high-density Builder’s Remedy applications clustered along Los Gatos Boulevard each independently necessitate preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15162.

We urge the Town to revise its CEQA approach to ensure full compliance with legal requirements for environmental analysis, transparency, and public review.

Sincerely,
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Gabrielle Whelan
Cc: Town Manager; Joel Paulson;
Subject: Re: Legal Effect of Non-Compliant Housing Element Adopted January 30, 2023 Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 9:04:31 AM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]

MEMORANDUM
To: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
From: Los Gatos Community Alliance
Date: July 13, 2025
Re: Legal Effect of Non-Compliant Housing Element Adopted January 30, 2023, on Development Applications Deemed Complete April 18, 2023, Including Applicability of Government Code § 65589.5(o)
I. Issue
Can a development application deemed complete on April 18, 2023, lawfully rely on the Town’s January 30, 2023, adopted housing element, which HCD determined to be out of compliance on April 14, 2023—including through any vesting claims under Government Code § 65589.5(o)?
II. Short Answer
No. A housing element deemed non-compliant by HCD lacks legal effect for purposes of vesting or development consistency. Government Code § 65589.5(o) only permits vesting in “valid” standards—those that were in effect and legally enforceable at the time of application. The April 14, 2023, HCD determination renders the January 30, 2023, element presumptively invalid, barring reliance on it. Under AB 1886 and existing law, this invalidity triggers the builder’s remedy, not vested zoning rights based on the defective housing element.

III. Key Facts
The Town adopted a new housing element on January 30, 2023.

On April 14, 2023, HCD issued a formal determination that the element was not in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law.

The development application was deemed complete on April 18, 2023.

The applicant asserts a vested right based on the adopted but non-compliant element’s provisions, presumably citing Government Code § 65589.5(o).

IV. Legal Analysis
A. HCD Compliance is Determinative Under State Law
Under California law, an adopted housing element has no legal effect unless it is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. That compliance must be affirmatively determined by HCD. (Gov. Code § 65585(f); see also Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) The courts have consistently rejected the doctrine of “self-certification.” (See also La Cañada Flintridge v. HCD, 2023.)

ITEM NO. 1.

Moreover, AB 2023 (effective Jan. 1, 2024) codifies a rebuttable presumption that a noncompliant housing element is invalid for all legal purposes, including zoning consistency and CEQA tiering. This presumption applies retroactively to pending applications that seek to rely on elements found out of compliance by HCD.

B. Vesting Requires a Valid Legal Framework at Time of Application Under Government Code § 65589.5(o), applicants vest in the “standards and criteria” in effect at the time a complete application is submitted. However, those standards must be lawfully enforceable. The Town’s general plan—of which the housing element is a mandatory component—was legally deficient as of April 14, 2023. That deficiency renders the entire general plan internally inconsistent and legally inadequate. (See Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544.) C. Government Code § 65589.55 (AB 1886) Clarifies Applicable Vesting Law AB 1886, enacted as Government Code § 65589.55, provides: “A housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial compliance... only if the element or amendment was in substantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction, when a preliminary application... was submitted.” (§ 65589.55(a)) “This section does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.” (§65589.55(b)) This confirms that a developer cannot rely on a non-compliant housing element to assert vested rights under § 65589.5(o). Because HCD’s April 14, 2023, finding applies retroactively to the date of preliminary application, no legal vesting occurred. The correct consequence is that the project qualifies under the builder’s remedy, not under the terms of the invalid element.

D. Zoning in Effect at Time of Application Controls Base Density Given that the Housing Element cannot be relied upon, the Town must fall back on the zoning regulations in effect as of April 18, 2023—which permitted a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. This figure governs both consistency determinations and calculations of base density under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915(f)).

Courts and HCD technical assistance letters confirm that density bonus calculations must be grounded in lawfully adopted and enforceable zoning.

E. Conclusion and Recommendations
Because the January 30, 2023, Housing Element was not in substantial compliance at the time of application, it cannot form the basis for vesting, project consistency, or density bonus calculations. The Town must evaluate the application against the prior zoning standards—namely, 20 units per acre—and not any provisions of the invalid element.

Accordingly:

1. The applicant cannot claim vested rights under § 65589.5(o) based on the January 2023 Housing Element.

2. The application should be analyzed under zoning in effect as of April 18, 2023.

3. The applicable base density for the purposes of any density bonus is 20 du/acre.

4. The builder’s remedy, rather than vested rights, governs any entitlement claims arising from the Town’s lapse in Housing Element compliance.

We respectfully urge the Town to withhold any discretionary action until HCD responds to the pending Technical Assistance Request submitted by the Los Gatos Community Alliance.

We remain available to provide further analysis or assistance as needed.

Sincerely,
Jak Van Nada - in behalf of
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

Rebuttal to FAQ Response 3 – Differing Definitions of Density The Town’s position that different standards apply for Housing Element compliance (“gross lot area”) versus state Density Bonus Law (“gross acreage”) introduces an unnecessary and impermissible duality. Both statutory frameworks—Housing Element Law and the Density Bonus Law—share a common goal of maximizing residential production. Artificially reducing site capacity in the Housing Element by using a narrower, undefined metric such as “gross lot area” directly contradicts the state’s intent and may invalidate the Housing Element inventory under HCD review.

HCD guidance repeatedly emphasizes that methodological consistency is necessary across density calculations to ensure transparent and enforceable RHNA compliance. Deviating from the statewide standard frustrates these objectives and potentially results in site inventories being rejected for undercounting development potential.

Rebuttal to FAQ Response 4 – RHNA and “No Net Loss” Compliance The FAQ fails to acknowledge the significant shortfall in affordable housing units proposed in the North 40 Phase II project relative to the site’s assumptions in the certified Housing Element. The Housing Element assumed 474 total units, including 365 affordable units across all income categories. In contrast, the proposed project includes only approximately 77 affordable units, a reduction of nearly 80% in low- and moderate-income capacity.

Under Government Code § 65863 (“No Net Loss”), the Town bears the burden of demonstrating that adequate capacity remains across all income levels. General assertions of adequate sites are insufficient. The Town must specifically identify developable parcels, by income category, that can accommodate the lost capacity within the 6th cycle. If it cannot, it must rezone equivalent sites within 180 days or risk enforcement by HCD or the Attorney General. The Town’s failure to assess or disclose these shortfalls in the FAQ undermines the credibility of its RHNA compliance.

Rebuttal to FAQ Response 5 – Vesting to an Uncertified Housing Element The suggestion that the North 40 project vested to the January 30, 2023 Housing Element simply because it was “adopted” misstates the law. Vesting under SB 330 and Government Code § 65589.5(o) depends not just on timing, but on legal enforceability. A Housing Element that has not been found in substantial compliance with state law by HCD or a court is not enforceable for purposes of denying or regulating Builder’s Remedy projects.

The Town cannot pick and choose when to treat the element as enforceable. If the element was noncompliant for Builder’s Remedy purposes, it is likewise invalid for vesting development standards under SB 330. To hold otherwise creates a legal contradiction and invites litigation challenging the Town’s selective enforcement.

Rebuttal to FAQ Response 6 – Inadequate CEQA Review
While the FAQ acknowledges that an Initial Study is being prepared under CEQA, this step alone is inadequate given the project’s scale, policy implications, and departure from what was analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. CEQA requires a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR when new information or substantial changes—such as density changes, increased environmental impacts, or cumulative effects—arise that were not addressed in the prior analysis
Given the concentration of SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy projects in Los Gatos and the Town Council’s own admission that cumulative impacts must be studied, the Initial Study should be followed by a full EIR to comply with CEQA and avoid piecemealing.

Conclusion
The Town’s FAQ attempts to rationalize inconsistencies in how it interprets and applies state housing law, density calculations, and RHNA compliance. However, those interpretations fall short under scrutiny of statutory language, HCD guidance, and legal

ITEM NO. 1.
precedent. To resolve these disputes, it is essential that the Town seek formal technical assistance from HCD and refrain from advancing or approving development projects that rest on legally questionable assumptions.

Let's not lose site of one of the most important objectives of the Housing Element was to increase the number of affordable units in Los Gatos. Unfortunately, it seems that we are being met with resistance from the Town. We are perplexed in that we seem to be arguing against the very parties whom all wanted more affordable housing early on in the process.

Jak Van Nada -
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

June 8, 2025
California Department of Housing and Community Development Attn: Housing Accountability Unit
2020 W. El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
Re: Request for Technical Assistance – North 40 Phase II Project in Town of Los Gatos Dear Housing Accountability Unit:

On behalf of concerned stakeholders and community members, we respectfully request technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the proposed North 40 Phase II development project (Architecture and Site Application S-23-031, Subdivision Application M-23-005) located at 14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County.

The North 40 Phase II project is currently under review by the Town, and the first public hearing before the Planning Commission occurred on April 30, 2025. We are requesting this technical assistance to aid the Town in its timely decision-making and ensure proper application of state housing laws.

This request arises due to unresolved legal and policy questions about the project’s compliance with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), and Government Code Section 65589.5(o).

Specifically, we seek clarification on the following six issues:

1. Applicability of the January 31, 2023 Housing Element The applicant contends that the Town’s January 31, 2023 Housing Element governs this project because it was formally adopted and in effect when the applicant submitted its preliminary application on April 18, 2023. The applicant cites Government Code § 65589.5(o), which allows housing projects to vest under the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on the date of the preliminary application.

However, we request HCD’s guidance on whether a housing element that had been adopted by the Town but already found noncompliant by HCD prior to the preliminary application date qualifies as an “ordinance, policy, or standard” under Government Code § 65589.5(o) for vesting purposes.

ITEM NO. 1.

Specifically:
 On April 14, 2023, HCD issued a letter stating that the Town’s January 31, 2023 Housing Element did not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law and required revisions.
 The Town submitted multiple revisions in response to HCD’s comments.  On May 3, 2024, HCD issued a letter indicating it would certify the Town’s revised Housing Element once adopted.
 The Town adopted a revised Housing Element on June 4, 2024.  HCD certified the Housing Element on July 10, 2024.

HCD has emphasized that jurisdictions do not have the authority to “self-certify” Housing Elements; state certification is required for legal effect. Because the January 31, 2023 element had already been deemed noncompliant before the preliminary application was submitted, it is unclear whether the project may lawfully rely upon it for purposes of vesting rights.

We therefore request HCD’s guidance as to whether the applicant may rely on the noncompliant January 2023 Housing Element, or whether the project must be reviewed under Builder’s Remedy provisions due to the lack of a certified element at the time of application.

2. Applicable Zoning at Time of Application
The preliminary application was deemed complete on April 18, 2023. At that time, the zoning for the project site was governed by the North 40 Specific Plan (NF-SP), which allowed a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre.

In December 2023, the Town adopted a zoning ordinance that amended the Town Code to replace the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) with a new Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ). The HEOZ included the North 40 Specific Plan area and implemented Housing Element site inventory assumptions allowing higher residential densities.

We seek HCD’s technical assistance to determine whether the project may rely on the subsequently adopted HEOZ, or whether Government Code § 65589.5(o) limits the project to the development standards—including density limits—in effect at the time the preliminary application was filed.

3. Status as a Single or Separate Housing Development Under State Law The project proposes 450 units, but these are divided between two distinct components:
 Grosvenor proposes to develop 383 units (373 market rate and 10 affordable).  Eden Housing, a separate nonprofit developer, is proposed to construct 67 affordable units on a 1.25-acre parcel that will be donated by Grosvenor.

ITEM NO. 1.

There is no enforceable agreement between the developers to carry out these projects as a single development. The Eden Housing component is contingent upon securing separate financing and would be independently managed. We request HCD’s guidance on whether this constitutes a single integrated housing development under the HAA and SDBL, or whether these must be treated as two separate developments.

This distinction is important because Grosvenor’s portion alone falls below the13% affordability threshold for Builder’s Remedy and below the minimum affordability needed for SDBL incentives.

4. Use of Net Acreage to Satisfy Minimum Density and Site Capacity The applicant claims the project meets the Housing Element’s minimum density requirement of 30 dwelling units per acre by proposing 450 units on a net acreage of

14.47 acres, which excludes public streets and infrastructure. This results in a claimed density of 31.1 du/ac. However, the actual gross acreage of the site is 15.65 acres, which yields a density of only 28.8 du/ac—below the minimum required.

The adopted Housing Element includes a specific definition of residential density:
 Density. Residential developments are regulated by an allowed density range (minimum and maximum) measured in “dwelling units per acre.” Residential density is calculated by dividing the number of housing units on the site (excluding accessory units) by the gross lot area.

This definition mandates the use of gross acreage, not net, for calculating consistency with minimum and maximum density limits.

State law is equally clear. Government Code § 65915(f) provides that base density under the State Density Bonus Law must be calculated using gross acreage. HCD’s December 2022 letter to the City of Watsonville further clarifies:
 Gross acreage includes all land owned in fee, including land encumbered by easements for public roads, utilities, or rights-of-way.  Areas set aside for future infrastructure, easements, slopes, wetlands, or dedications must still be included in the gross acreage calculation.  Assessor parcel maps are not reliable for this purpose; legal land surveys must be used to capture the full gross parcel.
 Government Code § 65915(r) requires that the SDBL be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of housing units.

Applied here:
 Grosvenor proposes 383 units on 14.40 acres = 26.6 du/ac  Eden Housing proposes 67 units on 1.25 acres = 53.6 du/ac  Total project = 450 units on 15.65 acres = 28.8 du/ac

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

A-1

ATTACHMENT A
14859 Los Gatos Blvd and 16270 Burton Road
(APN 424-07-009, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, -116, and -052) Architecture and Site Application S-23-031
Subdivision Application M-23-005
Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions Although the Project meets many of the General Plan policies, including the land use and density designated in the Housing Element, and the guidelines of the North 40 Specific Plan, the Applicant seeks incentives or concessions, waivers, and parking reductions pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915).

The Project will dedicate 77 of its 450 units to be rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code at a monthly cost that is an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. Note that this level of affordability equals 21 percent of the Project’s market rate units, which exceeds the affordability requirements in the Town’s BMP Ordinance. In addition, by providing this level of affordability, the Project is entitled to the following benefits under State Density Bonus Law:
• A density bonus of 30.5% above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1);
• Two incentives or concessions (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B); for purposes of the State Density Bonus Law, the terms “incentives” and “concessions” are interchangeable, and this summary will use “concession” going forward);
• Waivers or reductions for “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” that provides enough affordable housing to qualify for the State Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915(e)); and • Minimum parking requirements, inclusive of guest parking and including parking provided in uncovered or tandem spaces, that do not exceed specified ratios. (Gov. Code § 65915(p).)
As detailed below, the Applicant proposes to use the State Density Bonus Law’s concessions, rs, and parking reduction benefits to allow the development of the Project d I addition, the Applicant reserves the right to modify the request to include different or additional concessions and waivers if needed to address additional applicable development standards.

Concessions

1. Allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings. Section 2.5.10c of the North 40 Specific Plan prohibits residential uses on the ground floor of buildings in the Northern District, which covers the Project site. Because the Housing Element designates the Project site as a site that is suitable for very low, low‐, or moderate‐income households at a residential density of at least 30 du/ac, inconsistency with this zoning standard is not a basis to deny the Project under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5)(A). Accordingly, we do not believe that this standard is

ITEM NO. 1.

A-2
applicable to the Project. However, to the extent it applies, the Project proponent requests a concession to allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings.

Although portions of the Project incorporate commercial elements, it is not financially feasible to develop commercial spaces on the ground floor of all the buildings on the Project site. Therefore, eliminating this development standard will result in cost savings to help provide the level of affordability proposed.1

2. Potential Reduction in Private Open Space. (Townhomes only) The Town adopted “Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi‐Family and Mixed‐Use Residential Development” that applies to multi‐family and residential mixed‐use developments. Objective Design Standard A.11.1.b requires each ground floor dwelling unit to have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space. As currently designed, the Townhomes satisfy this requirement through the provision of private roof decks. However, to reduce construction costs, it may be necessary for the Project to remove some or all of the roof decks before submitting for building permits, which would cause the Project to fall short of the open space standard.

Therefore, the Project requests a concession to remove private roof decks from the design at the Applicant’s election to result in cost savings to help provide the level of affordability proposed.

Waivers
When considering the following proposed waivers, it is important to remember that “[i]n no case may [the Town] apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development [that qualifies for the State Density Bonus Law] at the densities” allowed and with the requested concessions. (See Gov. Code, § 65915(e)(1).) Cases have confirmed that once a project qualifies for a density bonus, “the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 774-75; see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346–1347 [waivers must be granted even though redesigning thee project to decrease amenities would reduce the need for waivers].)

1. Increased Maximum Height. Section 2.5.2 of the North 40 Specific Plan and referenced in Policy LU5 sets a maximum building height of 30 feet across the Project site and Section 2 5 7(b) sets a maximum building height of 25 feet for buildings located within 50 feet of Los Gatos Boulevard. The Project requires a waiver to allow the Affordable Multifamily (Building G) units to achieve a maximum height of 63 feet measured from the lowest natural grade to highest roof surface or 61 feet when measured from the proposed grade, and the town home units to achieve a maximum height of 49 feet when measured from the lowest natural grade or 44 feet when measured from lowest proposed grade, and the Mixed‐Income Multifamily (Building E) units to achieve a maximum height of 100 feet from when measured from the lowest natural grade to the highest roof surface or approximately 94 feet when measured from the lowest 1 See HCD Notice of Violation to City of Elk Grove (October 12, 2022), which concludes that allowing residential ground floor development in mixed use areas that otherwise require ground floor commercial uses results in actual and identifiable cost reductions such that refusal to approve a concession would violate the State Density Bonus Law.

ITEM NO. 1.

A-3
proposed grade. It should be noted that Building E is approximately 89 feet when measured from Los Gatos Boulevard and that detailed measurements are included in the updated architectural sheets in the attached revised drawings (Planning Comments 18, 27 and 29). The Specific Plan’s development standards do not accommodate the Project’s proposed density, which is allowed pursuant to the adopted Housing Element. Increased height is necessary for each proposed building typology to accommodate the proposed unit count and necessary parking facilities across the Project site.2, 3

2. Modified Street Sections. Section 4.13.3 of the North 40 Specific Plan defines a 40’ road section for Section 6d of North A Street with two 12’ drive lanes and two 8’ parking lanes. The Project proposes wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and reduced lane widths; accommodating all of the proposed facilities in the street would require additional right of way that would reduce the amount of developable area for buildings, resulting in a lower unit count. Therefore, the Project proponent requests a waiver from the required street section dimensions.

3. Deviations from Objective Design Standards. The Project has been designed to comply with as many of the Objective Design Standards as feasible while meeting the unit count called for in the Housing Element; however, to physically fit the Project as designed at the density allowed, the following standards must be waived:
• A.2.1. (100% affordable multifamily housing, townhomes, and commercial buildings only) Short-term bicycle parking cannot be accommodated within 50' of each building entry while maintaining adequate space for residential density and proposed open space.

In the alternative, the project distributes bike parking throughout the site to balance even distribution and convenience, while also supporting active community use. • A.2.2. (100% affordable multifamily housing, mixed-use multifamily, and townhomes) Long-term bicycle parking is provided at one space per unit. To maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, short-term bicycle parking is provided at a ratio of one space per 2,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. • A.3.4.e. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) To maintain adequate space for residential density and proposed open space, long‐term bicycle spaces are proposed to be accommodated with stacked parking. Although the proposed bicycle racks would not meet the Objective Design Standards’ dimensions, a reduction is necessary to provide adequate long-term bicycle parking without reducing the Project’s residential density.
• A.5.1. (Commercial building only) The project is designed to prioritize the pedestrian experience and active ground-floor retail uses where the buildings have frontage on C1 Street, D4 Street, and the Pedestrian Paseo, which is proposed as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. It is necessary to locate surface parking 2 In some cases, the height waivers proposed may exceed the more precise heights shown on the architectural plans.

We propose rounding the height up to nearest foot to allow for some variance between the current plans and final construction plans.
3 See HCD Notice of Violation to City and County of San Francisco (December 29, 2022), which concludes that it is a violation of the State Density Bonus Law to approve a project subject to a condition of approval that the applicant reduce the height proposed as a waiver.

ITEM NO. 1.

A-4
between the buildings and Los Gatos Boulevard, otherwise the Project would need to be redesigned to remove the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density. • A.6.3, (Mixed-use multifamily only) The multifamily building has a parking structure, and a pedestrian access gate cannot be provided without redesigning the Project and affecting its density. Pedestrians can access the exterior by using an elevator, corridor or stairs.
• A.10.2. (Mixed-use multifamily and townhomes only) The Project requires a new unbroken retaining wall between C5 Street and the neighboring property so long as the adjacent grade remains lower than the Project Site’s grade to support development at the permitted density.
• A.11.1.b. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) The 100% affordable multifamily building cannot accommodate balconies and cannot meet the private open space requirements while maintaining the unit count. The mixed-use multifamily building can accommodate balconies on only 49% of the units (126 units) without reducing Project density.
• A.12.1. (Mixed-use multifamily and commercial buildings only) The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Providing 75 percent of any street-facing façade would require a Project redesign to remove the proposed amenity and conflict with its concession request.
• B.1.1. (Townhomes only) The primary street-facing façade of the townhomes complies with B1.1.1b, c, and f. However, since each facade of the townhomes faces a street, depending on siting, it is not possible for the townhomes to comply with the requirement that all street-facing facades incorporate three of the identified design solutions. • B.1.2. (100% affordable multifamily housing and mixed-use multifamily only) An upperstory setback would reduce the density of the Project. • B.3.1. (Mixed-use multifamily only) The mixed‐use multifamily building (E1) cannot comply with the requirement to install horizontal eave breaks every 40 feet of building façade without redesigning the Project and reducing its density. • B.4.1. (Townhomes only) Townhomes comply at Front Facade of each building, but redesigning the Project to differentiate the base of the buildings at the Rear/Garage or Side Facades would affect the overall residential capacity by reducing the building form and floor area for the Project’s residential uses.
• B.4.3. (100% affordable multifamily housing and townhomes only) The 100% affordable multifamily building (6 points) and the townhomes (14 points) cannot reach 16 points through street‐facing façade plan variation while maintaining the unit count. • B.4.4. (Townhomes only) The Project proposes the Meadow as an amenity serving the public and future Project residents. Townhomes H1 and H2 are designed to face the Meadow rather than the street to activate this project amenity. As a result, the garage doors on these two townhomes exceed 40 percent of the length of the façade; otherwise, the Project would need to be designed to modify the proposed amenity or reduce its residential density.
• B.4.6.b. (Commercial building only) The Project proposes a Paseo to connect Los Gatos Boulevard to the Meadow, which would house the ground floor retail consistent with the Project’s first concession request and serve as a Project amenity serving the public and

ITEM NO. 1.

A-5
future Project residents. To activate the Paseo and accommodate the design of this Project amenity consistent with the Project’s concession request, the commercial buildings deviate from the façade requirements.
• B.4.10. (Townhome F3 only) Townhome B3 is adjacent to a single-family use and cannot be designed to set back five additional feet from the façade plan of the lower floor without reducing the project’s residential development capacity. • B.4.11. (Mixed-use multifamily building and townhomes only) The mixed-use multifamily building’s balconies extend into the airspace beyond the building footprint, as does the balcony for Townhome F3. This encroachment must be allowed to accommodate the project’s residential density and open space amenities. • B.4.13. (Mixed-use multifamily building only) The mixed‐use multifamily building (E1) cannot comply with the façade requirement without redesigning the Project and reducing its density.

4. BMP Program Standards. As noted above, because the Project is consistent with the Housing Element’s designated density for the Property and because it reserves 77 of its units as affordable to lower income households, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits the Town from denying the Project based on inconsistencies with zoning standards, including the Town’s BMP Program.

However, to the extent applicable, we request a waiver from the BMP Program requirement to provide affordable units proportionately in the same unit type mix as the market rate units and to have the units be dispersed throughout the Property. Because the Project would involve a partnership with a non‐profit developer to provide affordable housing units using tax credits and other financing mechanisms that require the affordable units be consolidated, compliance with the BMP Program requirements would physically preclude development of the Project.

Likewise, requiring larger affordable units would result in few units per building, reducing the Project’s density.

Parking Reductions
Consistent with the standards established in subdivision (p) of Government Code section 65915, the Applicant proposes that the mixed-use multifamily housing building and the townhomes be subject to the following minimum parking ratios, inclusive of guest parking:
• Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space;
Two to three bedrooms: one and one‐half onsite parking spaces; and • Four and more bedrooms: two and one‐half parking spaces.

Note that the 100% affordable multifamily housing building complies with the Town’s parking standards, which require less parking than the State Density Bonus Law. Therefore, this portion of the request is not applicable to the affordable housing component of the Project.

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Town Manager
Cc: Matthew Hudes; Gabrielle Whelan; Joel Paulson
Subject: Requesting Technical Assistance from HCD
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:44:15 PM
Attachments: Request for Technical Assistance - North 40 Phase II Project Final to HCD June 9 2025.pdf [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Today we filed a request for technical assistance from HCD regarding a number of outstanding policy and legal issues arising from the North 40 Phase II development application. We have previously suggested the Town seek technical assistance from HCD for a number of these issues but to our knowledge no requests have been made. Additionally we have asked the Town for clarification regarding these issues but never received a reply. Given the importance of this development application, asking HCD for technical assistance seemed extremely prudent.

We are providing you a copy of the request for your files.

Thank you
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Gabrielle Whelan
Cc: Town Manager; Joel Paulson;
Subject: Subject: Urgent Clarification Required on Critical Issues from Our 7/8/25 Meeting Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 8:40:58 AM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Gabrielle,
We appreciate the opportunity to engage in a productive discussion during our recent meeting. However, significant unresolved concerns regarding legal compliance and procedural integrity necessitate further clarification to prevent serious risks to the Town’s housing obligations and potential legal challenges.

We respectfully request your prompt attention to the following issues raised during our meeting, each of which carries substantial implications for the Town’s compliance with state housing law and the integrity of the current project.

1.Use of Net Acreage in Housing Element (HE) Compliance You indicated that, despite the HE explicitly defining “density” based on “gross lot area,” the Town’s zoning code permits the use of “net lot area” to determine HE compliance. This apparent prioritization of the zoning code over the HE’s clear definition raises serious concerns about legal consistency. Could you provide the precise statutory or legal authority justifying this deviation from the HE’s defined term? Additionally, please identify the specific zoning code section governing this calculation. The HE’s unambiguous reliance on “gross lot area” suggests that using “net lot area” undermines the HE’s intent and may expose the Town to legal scrutiny for non-compliance with state housing requirements.

2. Inconsistency in Density Computation Between HE and SDBL A glaring inconsistency exists in the applicant’s approach to density calculations, which threatens the project’s compliance with both the HE and the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The applicant proposes using “net acreage” for HE compliance, aligning with the Town’s zoning code, while relying on “gross acreage” for SDBL calculations, as permitted under Government Code Section 65915(f)(1). This contradictory methodology directly conflicts with guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Specifically, HCD’s technical assistance letter to the City of Agoura Hills dated July 26, 2023, unequivocally mandates the use of “gross acreage” for determining base density. By adopting divergent metrics—net acreage for HE and gross acreage for SDBL—the Town risks establishing a legally indefensible framework that could invalidate project approvals and invite litigation. Could you explain the Town’s rationale for tolerating this inconsistency and its divergence from HCD’s clear directive? To safeguard compliance and avoid legal jeopardy, must density not be uniformly calculated using gross acreage, as HCD recommends, for both HE and SDBL purposes?

3. Impact on HE Site Inventory and RHNA Obligations
The use of “net lot area” for HE compliance significantly reduces the developable land in the HE site inventory, jeopardizing the Town’s ability to meet its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

This approach may trigger “net loss” provisions under state law, as outlined in Government Code Section 65583.2, due to insufficient land capacity to accommodate required housing units. Could you confirm whether this methodology jeopardizes RHNA compliance and, if so, detail the potential consequences for the certified HE, including decertification or mandatory corrective actions? Failure to address this issue could undermine

ITEM NO. 1.
the Town’s housing obligations and erode public trust in its planning process.

4.Reliance on the January 31, 2023 Housing Element
The Town’s continued reliance on the January 31, 2023 HE is deeply problematic and exposes the project to significant legal risks. HCD’s letter dated April 14, 2023, explicitly found the HE non-compliant with state housing law, highlighting that Program D of the North 40 Specific Plan fails to commit to a minimum density.

The determination of the N 40 Phase II minimum density is central to our concern. Furthermore, the Town Council’s adoption findings lack substantial evidence and appear flawed, while HCD’s March 16, 2023 memo prohibits local jurisdictions from self-certifying their housing elements. Notably, HCD’s April 14, 2023 findings predate the N40 application’s completion on April 18, 2023, amplifying their relevance. Approving development under this non-compliant HE, which has undergone material subsequent changes, invites thirdparty legal challenges that could halt the project and incur significant costs. To mitigate these risks, we strongly urge the Town to suspend action until HCD provides technical assistance to resolve these deficiencies.

5. CEQA Review Approach
Substantial changes in circumstances and new information, unaddressed in the 2040 General Plan EIR or the N40 Specific Plan EIR, cast doubt on the validity of relying on these documents for CEQA compliance. This gap risks violating CEQA’s requirement for a thorough environmental review, potentially exposing the project to further legal challenges. Could you detail the Town’s strategy for ensuring full CEQA compliance, including whether a supplemental or subsequent EIR will be prepared to address these new conditions? We value your expertise and commitment to addressing these concerns. To avert third-party legal challenges, project delays, and potential non-compliance with state housing mandates, we strongly urge the Town to refrain from taking action until HCD provides technical assistance to resolve these critical issues.

Jak Van Nada In Behalf Of:

Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To:

Cc: ; Town Manager; Gabrielle Whelan; Joel Paulson; ;
Matthew Hudes
Subject: Subject: Urgent Request for Technical Assistance – North 40 Phase II (Los Gatos) Date: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:38:59 PM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To:

From: Jak Vannada, Los Gatos Community Alliance
Date: July 28, 2025
Email – Urgent Request for Technical Assistance
Dear Mr. Ying,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (LGCA), I write to urgently follow up on our June 24, 2025 request for technical assistance regarding the North 40 Phase II project— a proposed 450-unit mixed-use development currently pending before the Town of Los Gatos.

Our request raises critical legal questions under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), and the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). These issues are essential for ensuring lawful and informed decision-making by the Town’s Planning Commission.

HCD’s Consolidation of LGCA’s Request
We understand from HCD’s June 26, 2025 response that our request was consolidated into Case No. HAU 1928, which was initiated by Grosvenor Property Americas through its attorney, Eric Phillips. While we appreciate the acknowledgment, we are concerned that:
- HCD’s own response admits “the subject matter... is not exactly the same,” - Yet no direct response has been issued to LGCA’s specific legal concerns, and - Without a written reply, critical guidance is being withheld from both the community and - the Planning Commission.

Timing Concerns
We have learned that HCD does not plan to respond to LGCA’s request until after the Planning Commission’s next meeting, currently expected in late August. This raises serious questions:

How can the Planning Commission fairly and lawfully evaluate the application if HCD withholds technical guidance until after a vote is taken? Proceeding without state-level clarification risks a legally flawed decision and increases the likelihood of litigation, which in turn would delay housing production—contrary to HCD’s mission.

Hearing Limit and Process Breakdown

ITEM NO. 1.

Per Government Code § 65905.5, the Town is limited to five public hearings for this project.

One hearing has already occurred, even though:
- The staff report was incomplete,
- The independent nature of the Eden Housing component was not adequately addressed, and - The report contained non-CEQA-compliant analysis.

Holding a second hearing without full legal clarity from HCD imposes an unnecessary burden on both the Commission and the public.

Apparent Inequity in HCD Response Times
By contrast, we note that HCD responded promptly and in detail to a technical assistance request submitted by Arielle Harris (Cox Castle) on behalf of SummerHill Homes for the Saratoga Road Project—a smaller, 155-unit development. That response was issued just over four months after the request and addressed narrower PSA and SDBL questions.

LGCA’s request is similarly grounded, timely, and highly relevant. It deserves the same level of attention and transparency.

Our Request
We respectfully urge HCD to issue a separate, written response to LGCA’s June 24, 2025 request in advance of the next Planning Commission hearing.

This is essential to:
- Ensure legal compliance with state housing laws
- Promote transparent and informed public review
- Avoid unnecessary litigation and delays in housing production Sincerely,
Jak Van Nada
Los Gatos Community Alliance

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

To: Gabrielle Whelan
Cc: ; Town Manager; Matthew Hudes; Joel Paulson
Subject: Unequal Treatment of North 40 Phase II Projects – Luxe vs. Grosvenor Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025 9:03:59 AM
Attachments: image.png
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
September 13, 2025
Re: Unequal Treatment of North 40 Phase II Projects – Luxe vs. Grosvenor Dear Ms. Whelan:

The Los Gatos Community Alliance (LGCA) is concerned about the inconsistent treatment of two housing projects in the North 40 Phase II Specific Plan Area:

1. The Luxe Builder’s Remedy project at 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard; and

2. The Grosvenor project at 14859 Los Gatos Boulevard and 16270 Burton Road.

This disparity involves differing baseline density standards and uneven application of the Builder’s Remedy, risking non-compliance with state law and public trust in the planning process.

1. Application Timing and Housing Element Status
Preliminary application dates determine vesting rights and Builder’s Remedy eligibility:
• Luxe Project: Preliminary application submitted September 13, 2023, invoking Builder’s Remedy. • Grosvenor Project: Preliminary application deemed submitted April 17, 2023, under SB 330; formal application submitted September 18, 2023, and deemed complete April 17, 2024.

Both applications preceded the Housing Element’s certification on July 10, 2024. As the January 30, 2023, Housing Element was uncertified (per HCD’s April 14, 2023, letter), it lacked legal effect under Government Code §§ 65589.5(d)(5) and 65589.5(o), as affirmed in California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820. Thus, both projects vested under the North 40 Specific Plan’s baseline zoning during non-compliance.

1. Inconsistent Baseline Density and Acreage Calculations The Town has applied divergent standards:
• Luxe Project: Correctly evaluated at 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) per Town Code § 29.80.510(6)(b), Table 1B, for C1-HEOZ zoning, using gross acreage consistent with the Housing Element site inventory • Grosvenor Project: Claims a 30 du/ac baseline, citing the uncertified Housing Element, and uses net acreage

ITEM NO. 1.
(14.47 acres) to calculate 31.1 du/ac for 450 units. The proper density is 28.7 du/ac when using gross acreage (450 ÷ 15.65) as called for by the certified Housing Element.

As both projects vested during non-certification, the baseline must be 20 du/ac. While net acreage may be permissible under local zoning, HCD’s site inventory methodology requires gross acreage for consistency.

Grosvenor’s reliance on a higher baseline and net acreage creates unequal treatment.

1. Builder’s Remedy Application
The Town recognizes Luxe as a Builder’s Remedy project, allowing zoning flexibility for qualifying affordable projects under Government Code § 65589.5. Grosvenor, however, proceeds under the North 40 Plan without invoking Builder’s Remedy, relying on an inapplicable Housing Element density. This disparity is arbitrary, as both projects vested during non-compliance and must adhere to the same zoning baseline unless qualifying for Builder’s Remedy or density bonuses under Government Code § 65915.

1. Requested Action
To ensure compliance with state law, LGCA requests that the Town:

1. Confirm both projects use the 20 du/ac baseline under Town Code § 29.80.510(6)(b), Table 1B, and gross acreage for density calculations, consistent with HCD methodology.

2. Apply Builder’s Remedy uniformly to qualifying projects, per Government Code § 65589.5.

Addressing these inconsistencies will mitigate risks of HCD enforcement or litigation and uphold fair planning processes. LGCA requests a written response clarifying the Town’s position before further project advancement.

Respectfully submitted,
Jak Van Nada -
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/29/2025
ITEM NO: 1

ADDENDUM
DATE: October 27, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request to Construct a Mixed-Use Residential Development (450 Units), a Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned North Forty Specific Plan: Housing Element Overlay Zone.

Located at 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116.

APNs 424-07-009, -052, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, and -116. Architecture and Site Application S-23-031 and Subdivision Application M-23-005.

Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Property Owner: Yuki Farms LLC. Applicant: Grosvenor Property Americas c/o Steve Buster. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 27 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions

3. Consulting Architect’s Report

4. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

5. Final Arborist Report
ATTACHMENT 9 Page 1178
ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116/S-23-031 and M-23-005 DATE: October 27, 2025

6. Neighbor Outreach Summary

7. Visual Renderings

8. Objective Design Standards Checklist

9. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025

10. Transportation Analysis Report

11. Development Plans, Part 1

12. Development Plans, Part 2

13. Development Plans, Part 3

14. Development Plans, Parts 4 through 6

15. Development Plans, Parts 7 through 9

16. Development Plans, Parts 10 through 11
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Addendum Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025

18. Full Transportation Analysis Report
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Desk Item Report:

19. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025

20. Additional Correspondence from the Applicant
Previously Received with the October 24, 2025, Staff Report:

21. Final Initial Study – September 2025
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/N40II_FinalInitialStudy)

22. Required Findings and Considerations

23. Recommended Conditions of Approval

24. Revised Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions

25. Revised Objective Design Standards Checklist

26. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025
Received with this Addendum Report:

27. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.

EXHIBIT 27

ITEM NO. 1.

October 26, 2025
David Ying
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
CC: Mr. Gustavo Velasquez, Director HCD, Mayor Matthew Hudes, Town Manager Chris Constantin, Town Attorney Gabrielle Whelan; Barbara Kautz, Goldfarb Lipman Re: Emergency Request for Immediate Technical Assistance – Town Attorney’s Directive to Apply Density Standards from a Rejected Housing Element Dear Mr. Ying:

HCD’s immediate intervention is required. In my October 13, 2025 email to Town Attorney Gabrielle Whelan (see attached), she directed the Planning Commission to apply the 30 units/acre density standard from the January 30, 2023 Housing Element— which HCD found non-compliant on April 14, 2023—to the October 29 review of the North 40 applications.

This directive is contrary to controlling authority, including California Renters Legal Advocacy &amp; Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 831– 832, which holds that a noncompliant Housing Element has no legal effect for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). See also Gov. Code §§ 65585(b), (h).

I. The Town Attorney’s Directive Is Legally Invalid
Attorney Whelan’s email (attached) asserts:
- The project “should be evaluated against the 30 units/acre standard, because it vested after the Town’s adoption of the January 30, 2023 Housing Element.” - The Builder’s Remedy density is “125 units/acre (3 × 30 + 35).” - Grosvenor “elected to be reviewed under the density range allowed by the Housing Element.”
- Each assertion depends on the premise that the January 30, 2023, Housing Element remained legally operative despite HCD’s explicit finding of noncompliance on April 14, 2023. This directly conflicts with California Renters, which held that a noncompliant element lacks legal force for HAA purposes until certified by HCD.

II. Immediate HCD Action Is Required – Delay Will Entrench Legal Error

ITEM NO. 1.

HCD previously indicated it could wait to provide assistance until after the Planning Commission meeting. That is untenable because:

1. Statutory Hearing Limits – Gov. Code § 65589.5(o) restricts continuances.

Hearings held under erroneous legal assumptions cannot be undone.

2. Administrative Record Prejudice – Findings adopting the 30 du/ac standard or 125 du/ac Builder’s Remedy calculation will become embedded in the record and later constrain judicial review.

3. Proactive Duty Under § 65585(g) – HCD must prevent violations, not merely comment after the Commission makes determinations based on invalid standards.

III. Legal Errors Embedded in the Town Attorney’s Position A. Misstated “Election” Between Housing Element and Baseline Zoning The HAA allows applicants to elect between statutory versions of § 65589.5 (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(A)), not between legally invalid Housing Element densities and baseline zoning. Baseline zoning for both North 40 projects is 20 du/ac under the North 40 Specific Plan/HEOZ zoning (Town Code § 9.80.510(6)(b)). Allowing Grosvenor to use a rejected element while holding others to baseline zoning creates inconsistent, unequal treatment in violation of Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(1).

B. Builder’s Remedy Density Is Miscalculated
The Town attorney’s formula—(3 × 30) + 35 = 125 du/ac—assumes a 30 du/ac baseline. Correct baseline zoning is 20 du/ac, resulting in: (3 × 20) + 35 = 95 du/ac
Nothing in the HAA authorizes Builder’s Remedy projects to use densities from a noncompliant Housing Element.

C. Invalid Reliance on Site Inventory for “Suitability” The Town asserts the North 40 sites were “identified as suitable” under Gov.

Code §65589.5(d)(5)(A) because they appear in the rejected January 2023 inventory. This is legally unsound:
- Gov. Code § 65583.2 requires the inventory to be in a compliant Housing Element.
- San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 657–658 confirms that Housing Element inventories lacking HCD certification are not legally operative.

IV. Concrete Harm if HCD Does Not Act Before October 29 Hearing

ITEM NO. 1.

If HCD remains silent, the Planning Commission will:
- Make findings that the 2023 Housing Element “allowed 30 du/ac” despite having no legal effect
- Use 125 du/ac instead of 95 du/ac to calculate Builder’s Remedy density; - Accept a false “election” theory available only to Grosvenor; - Treat a rejected site inventory as establishing suitability.

V. Requested Immediate HCD Action
HCD must provide written technical assistance confirming:

1. The January 30, 2023 Housing Element had no legal effect from April 14, 2023 until certification in June 2024;

2. The 30 du/ac standard cannot be used for vesting, Builder’s Remedy calculations, site suitability, or applicant “elections”

3. Correct baseline density for North 40 is 20 du/ac

4. Builder’s Remedy density is 95 du/ac, not 125 du/ac

5. The rejected inventory cannot establish § 65589.5(d)(5)(A) site suitability

6. Attorney Whelan’s directive conflicts with California Renters and Gov. Code §§ 65585 and 65589.5.

Respectfully
Jak Van Nada -
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/29/2025
ITEM NO: 1
ADDENDUM 2
DATE: October 28, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request to Construct a Mixed-Use Residential Development (450 Units), a Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned North Forty Specific Plan: Housing Element Overlay Zone.

Located at 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116.

APNs 424-07-009, -052, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, and -116. Architecture and Site Application S-23-031 and Subdivision Application M-23-005.

Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Property Owner: Yuki Farms LLC. Applicant: Grosvenor Property Americas c/o Steve Buster. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 28 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2025.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions

3. Consulting Architect’s Report

4. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

5. Final Arborist Report

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116/S-23-031 and M-23-005 DATE: October 28, 2025

6. Neighbor Outreach Summary

7. Visual Renderings

8. Objective Design Standards Checklist

9. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025

10. Transportation Analysis Report

11. Development Plans, Part 1

12. Development Plans, Part 2

13. Development Plans, Part 3

14. Development Plans, Parts 4 through 6

15. Development Plans, Parts 7 through 9

16. Development Plans, Parts 10 through 11
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Addendum Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025

18. Full Transportation Analysis Report
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Desk Item Report:

19. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025

20. Additional Correspondence from the Applicant
Previously Received with the October 24, 2025, Staff Report:

21. Final Initial Study – September 2025
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/N40II_FinalInitialStudy)

22. Required Findings and Considerations

23. Recommended Conditions of Approval

24. Revised Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions

25. Revised Objective Design Standards Checklist

26. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025
Previously Received with the October 27, 2025, Addendum Report:

27. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025.

Received with this Addendum Report:

28. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.

EXHIBIT 28

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 1:32 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD
Subject: October 29, 2025 Special Meeting Public Comment: North 40 Phase 2 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good afternoon,
I’ve attached my letter of support for the North 40 Phase 2 housing development.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Respectfully,
Jennifer Lucas (she/her)
Manager, Central Coast Office
State Council on Developmental Disabilities
www.scdd.ca.gov
Have a problem or concern with a Medicaid-funded service? Let us know on our Medicaid Watch portal!
Medicaid Watch: https://bit.ly/SCDDMedicaidWatch
Stay informed and sign up for our newsletter!

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

IDD will receive on-site housing stability support through Housing Choices, complementing the individualized services they already receive, such as Supported Living Services or Independent Living Services.

Approving this project also keeps Los Gatos in alignment with its Housing Element goals and with state housing laws such as SB 330, which require local jurisdictions to plan for inclusive, affordable housing. Every unit built in this development represents progress toward Los Gatos’ long-standing Housing Element and fair-housing goals. Moving forward now helps ensure Los Gatos maintains local control while fulfilling its legal and moral obligation to provide housing opportunities for all residents, including those with disabilities.

The need for these homes is urgent. Many adults with developmental disabilities live with aging parents who worry about what will happen when they can no longer provide care. Locally, the Los Gatos Union High School District’s post-secondary transition program serves about 30 students with disabilities each year, many of whom face limited housing options once they graduate. The North 40 Phase II project offers a real and immediate path toward stability and belonging.

Every delay adds cost and risk for individuals and families waiting for these opportunities.

Timely approval will keep the project feasible and reaffirm Los Gatos’ values of inclusion, compassion, and community.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to ensuring that Los Gatos remains a place where all people can live and thrive.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Lucas
Regional Manager, Central Coast Office
CA State Council on Developmental Disabilities
2580 N. First Street, Ste. 240
San Jose, CA 95131

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Vivian Chung
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: October 29, 2025 Special Meeting Public Comment: North 40 Phase 2 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find the attached Supporting Letter to the Noth 40 Phase 2 project.

Thank you very much.

Regards,
Vivian Chung
South Bay Program Director
Friends of Children with Special Needs
1029 S. Bascom Ave, San Jose, CA 95128
Website: https://fcsn1996.org/
Careers: https://fcsn1996.bamboohr.com/careers
Confidentiality Notice:

This e-mail, including attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.

Any usage, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies immediately.

ITEM NO. 1.

Friends of Children wi! Special Needs

2300 Peralta Blvd., Fremont, CA 94536
1029 S. Bascom Ave., San Jose, CA 95128
42080 Osgood Rd, Fremont, CA 94538
10/27/2025 Via email: [email protected]
Re: October 29, 2025 Special MeeAng Public Comment: North 40 Phase 2 Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am wriGng on behalf of Friends of Children with Special Needs to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase II Development, to respecPully urge the Commission to approve this project so it can move forward without delay.

North 40 Phase II will provide much-needed affordable housing, with 25% of the units designated for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabiliGes who receive services from San Andreas Regional Center, the state funded Agency.

We have many individuals with special needs whose parents are aging and increasingly unable to care for them, yet these individuals are unable to move out of their family homes because they simply cannot afford the high cost of rent. Without access to affordable and supporGve housing opGons, they face the very real risk of instability and displacement once their primary caregivers are no longer able to provide for them. Inclusive housing developments like North 40 Phase II offer a criGcal soluGon to this growing need.

This proposal fulfills what was envisioned in the Housing Element and delivers exactly what was approved. The affordable housing component will be a pad-ready, environmentally safe, and well-prepared site for construcGon. Eden Housing is a trusted, mission-driven developer with a long history of success in creaGng inclusive affordable housing in partnership with nonprofits like Housing Choices and has already demonstrated its commitment to quality through the Gmely compleGon of Phase 1. Flexibility and Gmely approval will ensure that this second phase can begin quickly and efficiently.

The inclusion of at least 17 units (25%) for individuals with IDD is especially important and criGcal. Adults with IDD o`en face some of the steepest barriers to housing access, despite their strong Ges to our community. This project offers them the chance to live independently with dignity, near their families and the services they rely on. These are residents who grew up here, aaended our schools, and now deserve the opportunity to thrive in their hometown. AddiGonally, these individuals would receive onsite support from Housing Choices, a vendor of San Andreas Regional Center, to ensure they are stable in their unit. These services are different than their individual supporGve services such as Independent Living Services and Supported Living Services.

The project also achieves very low affordability levels, meets the density requirement of 30 units per acre, and will bring residents into a walkable, mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhood with access to transit, outdoor spaces, and community ameniGes.

ITEM NO. 1.

Every delay adds unnecessary cost and puts families waiGng for homes at greater risk of being priced out. Moving forward now keeps the project feasible and ensures Los Gatos conGnues to be a welcoming and inclusive town for people of all abiliGes.

The need is urgent. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved ones with disabiliGes in the future. I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and allow it to move forward.

Thank you for your commitment in addressing the urgent need for affordable and inclusive housing in our community.

Sincerely,
Vivian Chung
South Bay Living Services Director

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Alex Kamas
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 6:24 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item #1
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
I’m a resident of Los Gatos who lives near the proposed North 40 Phase II development. I am strongly in favor of this development and am asking the Planning Commission to approve it.

This is exactly the kind of housing that Los Gatos needs in order to meet our housing goals and to address our housing crisis. I’m excited that we are going to get more neighbors and that the Los Gatos Union School District will get more students. Since 2015, LGUSD has lost a 1/5th of its total enrollment numbers. This spring, Van Meter had 161 fewer students than it did in spring of 2015. If that rate continues, we are seriously at risk of having to close elementary schools.

Approving this project means that those risks will be mitigated and growing families will be able to have more choices of where to live. Please vote to approve this project. -Alex Kamas

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/29/2025
ITEM NO: 1

DESK ITEM
DATE: October 29, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request to Construct a Mixed-Use Residential Development (450 Units), a Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned North Forty Specific Plan: Housing Element Overlay Zone.

Located at 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116.

APNs 424-07-009, -052, -053, -081, -094, -095, -115, and -116. Architecture and Site Application S-23-031 and Subdivision Application M-23-005.

Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Property Owner: Yuki Farms LLC. Applicant: Grosvenor Property Americas c/o Steve Buster. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 29 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2025.

Exhibit 30 includes additional correspondence from the applicant.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions

3. Consulting Architect’s Report

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116/S-23-031 and M-23-005 DATE: October 29, 2025

4. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

5. Final Arborist Report

6. Neighbor Outreach Summary

7. Visual Renderings

8. Objective Design Standards Checklist

9. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025

10. Transportation Analysis Report

11. Development Plans, Part 1

12. Development Plans, Part 2

13. Development Plans, Part 3

14. Development Plans, Parts 4 through 6

15. Development Plans, Parts 7 through 9

16. Development Plans, Parts 10 through 11
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Addendum Report:

17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025

18. Full Transportation Analysis Report
Previously Received with the April 30, 2025, Desk Item Report:

19. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 29, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025

20. Additional Correspondence from the Applicant
Previously Received with the October 24, 2025, Staff Report:

21. Final Initial Study – September 2025
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/N40II_FinalInitialStudy)

22. Required Findings and Considerations

23. Recommended Conditions of Approval

24. Revised Letter of Justification with Proposed Density Bonus Concessions, Waivers, and Parking Reductions

25. Revised Objective Design Standards Checklist

26. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025
Previously Received with the October 27, 2025, Addendum Report:

27. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025.

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 14859, 14917, 14925, and 16392 Los Gatos Boulevard; 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; and Assessor Parcel Number 424-07-116/S-23-031 and M-23-005 DATE: October 29, 2025
Previously Received with the October 28, 2025, Addendum Report:

28. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Monday, October 27, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2025.

Received with this Desk Item Report:

29. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2025.

30. Additional Correspondence from the Applicant

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Sarah Verity
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 11:38 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: October 29,2025 Special Meeting Public Comment: North 40 Phase 2 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
Please see the attached letter of support for tomorrow’s Planning Commission Meeting.

Thank you,
Sarah Verity (she / her)
Vice President, Board Relations and Legislative Affairs 350 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123
Redwood City, CA 94065
abilitypath.org
Via Services is now affiliated with AbilityPath, thriving together to provide a lifetime of opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities. Learn more at abilitypath.org/ affiliationFAQ.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Katherine Mancuso
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 6:03 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Gia Soto <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Oct 29 2025
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong support for the North 40 Phase 2 Development, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and designated units for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). My parents moved to Los Gatos/Saratoga in the early 50’s and I was lucky to be able to grow up here and have a successful career that allowed me to buy a home here. Unfortunately this is no longer the case for our children. I don’t have to explain to you the affordability issue that we have. I’m sure many of you have had your own children have to move out of the state in order to be a home owner. It saddens me that Los Gatos planning doesn’t take into account our own next generation of children and grandchildren! As a long time resident I believe we have a dire responsibility to create housing equity and community inclusion, this is a must do for Los Gatos.

The inclusion of units for individuals with IDD is especially critical. I have a 29 year old son who has Intellectual disabilities, moving out of the state to find affordable housing is not an option for him. My son was able to move out a little over a year ago so I have seen first hand how important this step was for him and for our family. He has grown expedentially after getting his own place, the pride he has in telling everyone that he has his own appartment is immense.

The fact that he will certainly out live us, weighs heavy on my heart. Everyday I work to insure that he can be independent and will thrive, even after we are gone. He has been fortunate to be able to move out, but the closest affordable housing we could get is in Santa Clara. This project offers him the chance to live closer to family members he relies on and live independently with dignity, near his doctors, dentists and friends that he grew up with.

This project plays a critical role in ensuring the Town of Los Gatos meets its legal obligations under state housing law, including compliance with its certified Housing Element and Senate Bill 330 (SB 330). Approval of the North 40 Phase 2 development provides a clear demonstration to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that Los Gatos is taking thoughtful steps to fulfill its affordable housing obligations. The fewer restrictions placed on the project, the faster affordable housing can be built. The project is not in a flood zone and is on a separate sewer system and will not impact other home in the area.

The need is urgent. My son’s story is not unique, we personally know of many young adults living in Los Gatos with these same needs. Many other local families are aging and worry about what will happen to their loved ones with disabilities in the future.

I urge the Planning Commission to approve this development and ensure that the IDDdesignated units and affordable housing components are preserved and prioritized as the project moves forward.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Katherine Mancuso
Los Gatos Resident

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

October 27, 2025
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
To Whom It May Concern,
The Housing Action Coalition is pleased to support Grosvenor - Property Americas’ proposed North 40 Phase II project in Los Gatos, which will transform 15.63 acres of underutilized land into a vibrant mixed-use development providing 450 much-needed homes, retail spaces, and publicly accessible open space. We are especially excited by the project’s commitment to affordable housing, community engagement, and smart growth principles, all of which will enhance Los Gatos’ housing supply and foster a more inclusive and connected community.

Land Use. The project represents a thoughtfully designed mixed-use master plan, complementing Los Gatos’ vision for smart growth. It includes a diverse mix of rental apartments, for-sale townhomes, and ground-floor commercial spaces, arranged around a large public open space known as “The Meadow”. This pedestrian-friendly development prioritizes connectivity, linking housing, retail, and open space to surrounding neighborhoods. The project’s design integrates well with the area, ensuring both new and existing residents benefit from an improved public realm.

Density. The project takes full advantage of the site’s zoning and density allowances, proposing

31.1 dwelling units per acre and maximizing housing supply in a desirable, high-opportunity location. By leveraging State Density Bonus Law, the development goes beyond local zoning requirements to deliver critically needed homes while maintaining a balanced and thoughtfully planned urban environment.

Affordability. The project dedicates 77 of its 450 homes (17%) as affordable housing, ensuring that lower-income families have access to high-quality housing in Los Gatos. The development team has also committed 1.25 acres of land to Eden Housing for the construction of a 100% affordable building with 67 affordable units available to income levels of 60% AMI and below, further reinforcing the project’s commitment to inclusive housing opportunities.

Parking and Alternative Transportation. While Los Gatos is not considered a transit-rich location, the project team is making efforts to reduce car dependency by incorporating bicycle parking, connecting to an existing bike trail, pedestrian pathways, and transportation demand management strategies. The project also includes a balanced parking approach, aligning with both State Density Bonus Law and local requirements, while ensuring adequate visitor and resident parking to maintain accessibility.

Urban Design. The North 40 Phase II project integrates high-quality urban design elements, including 3.55 acres of green open space, a pedestrian-oriented layout, and architecture that respects the town’s character. The Meadow will serve as a dynamic public gathering space, providing outdoor amenities for both residents and the broader Los Gatos community. The inclusion of barn-inspired commercial buildings and an interpretive display honoring the site’s Page 1204 ITEM NO. 1.
agricultural heritage further strengthens the project’s connection to the town’s history.

Environmental Features. Sustainability is a core principle of this project, with commitments to all-electric residential units, on-site renewable energy, water-efficient systems, and stormwater management solutions. The development is targeting Green Point Rated Silver certification, reinforcing its dedication to environmentally responsible building practices.

Community Benefits and Input. The project team has engaged in a multi-year community outreach process, incorporating feedback from local organizations, neighborhood groups, and town officials.

This engagement has shaped the project’s design, ensuring that key concerns—such as traffic, housing diversity, and open space—are meaningfully addressed. Through this, the project provides extensive public realm improvements, small business support, and new retail opportunities.

The inclusion of local-serving commercial spaces and a public pavilion for community events will activate the site and contribute to a more vibrant and engaged neighborhood. Additionally, the project addresses local infrastructure needs by dedicating easements for future transportation improvements and continuing the town’s multi-use bike and pedestrian path network.

We applaud the project team for their ambitious and thoughtful approach to expanding Los Gatos’ housing supply while prioritizing affordability, sustainability, and community connectivity. We urge the Los Gatos Town Council to approve the North 40 Phase II project, which will play a crucial role in addressing the region’s housing needs while enhancing the town’s quality of life.

Sincerely,
Corey Smith, Executive Director

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 10:17 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Barbara Kautz ; Katy Nomura <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to the PC for tonight's meeting
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To Town Clerk
Please forward this letter to the Planning Commission for their meeting this evening.

Thank you,
Jak Vannada
Los Gatos Community Alliance

ITEM NO. 1.

Re: North 40 Project (S-23-031 / M-23-005) – Concurrent Construction with Proportional BMP Integration
Dear Commissioners,
The Los Gatos Community Alliance urges you to require
concurrent construction of Building E1 and all 127 town homes, with 77 BMP units (17% of 450 total) distributed proportionally across both from the outset, consistent with LGMC §29.10.

Proposed Requirements:
• Building permits for E1 and townhomes issued within same 6- month window
• No townhome COs until E1 reaches 50% completion; no
further E1 COs until townhomes reach 50%
• 77 BMP units dispersed initially: ~43 in E1, ~22 in
townhomes, with identical unit types and finishes as marketrate • If Lot 19/G1 proceeds later, up to 67 BMP units may transfer via recorded release (minimum 10 remain in E1/townhomes) • Deny BMP dispersion waiver unless physical preclusion is documented
Why This Matters:

The current plan concentrates BMP units (10 in E1, 67 in G1) and permits 127 market-rate townhomes first. If Lot 19 stalls, the initial 382-unit phase could deliver zero affordable housing—violating §29.10’s integration requirements and

ITEM NO. 1.
undermining SDBL, the Housing Element, and community
equity.

Key Benefits:
• Guarantees 65+ affordable units in Phase 1, independent of Lot 19
• Achieves true integration across all building types from day one
• Retains full SDBL incentives while allowing future LIHTC flexibility
• Creates enforceable accountability through CO restrictions This revision ensures immediate affordability while maintaining project feasibility. We urge its adoption through an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) condition.

Sincerely,
Jak Vannada
Los Gatos Community Alliance

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

EXHIBIT A

ITEM NO. 1.

A-1

EXHIBIT A
Project Analysis and Supporting Materials
Based on the staff report and proposed findings published on October 24, 2025, in advance of the Planning Commission’s October 29, 2025 public hearing on the Project, the following discussion addresses (I) The Project’s State Density Bonus Law concession request; (II) clarifications in support of the staff report’s analysis; and (III) responses to public comments included in the staff report.

I. The Town Should Grant the State Density Bonus Law Concessions as Proposed.

A. The Project is Eligible for a Density Bonus, Including the Proposed Concessions and Waivers.

The Applicant seeks the Town’s approval to construct 450 total housing units, and it has agreed to dedicate 17% of the total units within the Project (77 out of 450) to lower-income households. Therefore, the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) entitles the project to parking reductions, two concessions,1
and unlimited waivers. (See Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2).) The Applicant has requested the following concessions and waivers:
• Concession to allow residential uses on the ground floor of buildings • Concession for an alternative timing mechanism for delivery of the affordable housing units
• Waiver from the maximum permitted height requirement
• Waiver from the required street section dimensions
• Waiver to deviate from objective design standards
• Waiver from the BMP Program requirement to provide affordable units proportionately in the same unit type mix as the market rate units and to have the units be dispersed throughout the Property
The October 29, 2025 staff report correctly notes that “if an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development . . . that will contain” specified amounts of affordable housing, the Town is obligated to approve the SDBL requests unless specific findings can be made. (Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1).) However, the staff report incorrectly concludes that the Applicant’s concession request for an alternative timing mechanism for delivery of the affordable housing units means that the applicant is not “committing” to build affordable housing. None of the housing laws cited in the staff report use the word “committing” – this is an additional standard that goes beyond what state law requires.

The applicable legal standard requires the Applicant to seek and agree to construct affordable housing, and this standard, not the framework included the staff report, should be used to evaluate the Project’s concession request. Regardless, as detailed below, the Applicant’s proposed concession includes adequate safeguards to protect the Town’s interest in seeing the 1 For purposes of the State Density Bonus Law, the terms “incentives” and “concessions” are interchangeable, and this letter will use “concession” going forward.

ITEM NO. 1.

A-2
Project built to completion and commits the Applicant to delivering affordable housing before it can complete the majority of the Project’s market rate units.

Not only that, but the alternative condition of approval included in the staff report to require concurrent production of affordable housing throughout each phase of the Project would render the Project economically infeasible.2 Thus, as explained below, the staff report’s condition is barred by the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5, also known as the “HAA”).

B. The Concession Request Complies with SDBL Requirements.

As an initial matter, neither the SDBL nor the Housing Crisis Act (the other state law the staff report proffers in support of its findings) require a set schedule for delivery of affordable housing. They simply require the Applicant to seek and agree to provide affordable housing.

Here, the Applicant has included 77 units of affordable housing in its development application, and it is diligently seeking Town approval to develop the Project. The Applicant has agreed to conditions of approval that will require the Project Site to be subject to recorded restrictions requiring affordable housing development and prohibiting other uses within the portions of the Project that are committed for affordable housing development. This is sufficient to satisfy state law requirements for SDBL eligibility.

Moreover, the proposed concession includes robust security in favor of the Town to ensure that the Project will be developed as proposed. Under the proposed concession, the Applicant would be obligated to:
• Invest tens of millions of dollars in backbone infrastructure and utility costs to prepare the Project Site for development;
• Complete vertical-ready development pads for the 100% affordable building and the mixed-income multifamily building within the Project; • Develop no more than 127 market rate units (i.e., less than 1/3 of the Project, or approximately 28% of the proposed units) before delivering affordable units in either the 100% affordable building or the mixed-income multifamily building.

Note that it is essential for Project feasibility that the Applicant be permitted to develop a portion of the market rate units in order to obtain financing for the initial infrastructure investment required to make the site developable. The 127 units proposed in the concession are the minimum number of units needed to feasibly underwrite the Applicant’s land acquisition and backbone infrastructure investment, which must be made before any housing units can be developed on the Project Site.

Accordingly, the requested concession for an alternative timing mechanism for delivery of the affordable housing units is reasonable, because it helps secure the delivery of affordable housing, yet allows the Project to remain feasible. Under the SDBL, the Town must grant the 2 For purposes of the HAA, “feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic . . . factors.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(1).)

ITEM NO. 1.

A-3
concessions requested by the Applicant unless the Town makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(1) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, or for rents for the targeted units to be set at affordable rents; [The staff report concedes that the concession would result in actual, identifiable cost reductions]
(2) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact (a) upon public health and safety or (b) on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households; or [no health or safety impacts or impacts to historical resources have been identified or are associated with the Town’s proposed denial of the concession request] (3) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. [the Town has not correctly identified a state or federal requirement that the concession violates] (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).)
Here, it is impossible for the Town to make any of the above findings with respect to any of the requested concessions. For projects with affordable housing, concession requests are presumed to reduce costs, and the Town has the burden of proof to come up with evidence that a requested concession does not reduce costs. (Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549.) Because it cannot do so here, the Town should approve the concession as proposed.

In addition, recall that before the Town upzoned the Project Site to 30 du/ac in connection with its Housing Element Update, the Applicant suggested that the Town permit housing development on the Project Site at a maximum of 20 du/ac to achieve a feasible townhome-only development project. Despite the Applicant’s suggestion, the Town elected to increase the Project Site’s density to a minimum of 30 du/ac, which the current proposed Project accommodates. However, in no scenario would 127 townhomes alone be sufficient to support a feasible development project. For the Project to be feasible at the 450 total units now proposed, the Applicant ultimately will need to complete all 373 market rate units (450 less the 77 affordable units), including the townhomes and the multifamily building. Under the proposed concession, this could only occur after delivery of the affordable housing. Therefore, the proposed concession request would incentivize the Applicant to deliver the Project’s affordable housing components as soon as possible so that it can continue developing market rate units and complete the Project.

C. The Applicant’s Proposed Concession is Already More Restrictive than Requirements in Comparable Projects.

Finally, the proposed concession limiting development to 28% of the Project is much more restrictive than similar requirements the Town has imposed in the past and conditions of approval imposed by other peer jurisdictions. For example, in Phase I of the North 40

ITEM NO. 1.

A-4
development, the Town approved 320 residential units, of which 50 units were affordable senior units. The Town required the affordable housing to be available and/or occupied prior to final occupancy issuance for the 187th market rate unit. (See Resolution 2017-045, Exhibit B, p. 9.) In other words, 58% of the total (186 units out of 320 units) Phase I project were allowed to be built before the Town required the affordable units.

The same is true for other jurisdictions’ approach to affordable housing timing. In jurisdictions such as the City of Dublin, the City of Redwood City, and the City of San Ramon, members of the Applicant’s development team have received recent project approvals where market rate units are permitted to develop at their own pace, and affordable housing is secured by pledging the property devoted for affordable housing to the jurisdiction. In such instances, if affordable housing is not produced within a set period of time – in some cases as long as 10 years after project approval – the jurisdiction can take ownership of the property to oversee development of affordable housing. The Applicant offered a similar structure to the Town, but we were informed the Town had no interest in the land or overseeing housing production. In lieu of a commitment to donate property, the Applicant proposed its concession request to develop the minimum amount of market rate housing needed to feasibly finance the Project’s infrastructure. This self-imposed limitation is more restrictive than what the Town required in Phase I of the North 40 and is more restrictive than what peer jurisdictions require; therefore, we hope the Planning Commission agrees the proposed concession is adequately protective of the Town’s interests.

D. The Town’s Alternative Condition of Approval Would Render the Project Infeasible.

For the reasons discussed above, the Project’s proposed affordable housing timing meets state housing law requirements and provides the Town with adequate security for affordable housing delivery. By contrast, the Town’s proposed condition of approval would render the Project economically infeasible and therefore would violate the Housing Accountability Act. In place of the proposed concession, the staff report includes a condition of approval to develop 17% of the Project’s affordable units concurrently with every market rate unit. This would mean that the Applicant would only have 105 market rate units (127 townhome less 17%) to use for financing land acquisition and tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure. This is too heavy of a burden on only 105 market rate units, and would render the Project infeasible. Thus, the Town’s condition of approval would result in no housing being built.

Furthermore, even if the Project were feasible with the staff report’s condition, it would impermissibly increase the Project’s affordability requirements. Requiring 22 affordable units in addition to the 77 already proposed would result in an affordability contribution of 22%, far in excess of what the Town may legally require.

As discussed in more detail below, the HAA prevents the Town from conditioning a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:

ITEM NO. 1.

A-5
(1) The Town has adopted a compliant, revised housing element and has met or exceeded its share of the RHNA for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project; [the Town has not yet met or exceeded its share of the RHNA, so this finding is inapplicable]
(2) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated or avoided without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible; [no health or safety impacts have been identified or are associated with the Town’s proposed condition of approval]
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderateincome households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible; [the Town’s proposed condition is not required to comply with any state or federal law; if the Town’s conclusion that state law requires such a condition were correct, it still would not support imposition of a condition that would render the Project infeasible]
(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project; [the Project site is not zoned for agriculture or resource preservation, so this finding is inapplicable] (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the Town had adopted a compliant, revised housing element, and the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation; or [the Town did not have a certified housing element as of the date the Project application was deemed complete, so this finding is inapplicable; moreover, the Project complies both with the Housing Element that was adopted and in effect at the time and the current certified Housing Element]
(6) On the date an application for the housing development project was deemed complete, the Town did not have an adopted, compliant, revised housing element and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. [although the Applicant has not invoked all of the builder’s remedy protections, the Project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, so this finding is inapplicable] None of the findings for denial or in support of a condition of approval rending the Project infeasible can be made here. Thus, the Town must grant the concessions, including the concession for an alternative timing mechanism for delivery of the affordable housing units or it will violate both the SDBL and the HAA.